From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 5 23:04:30 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B810106566B for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:04:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@smartt.com) Received: from barium.smartt.com (mailout3.smartt.com [69.67.187.28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E7B8FC0A for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 23:04:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@smartt.com) Received: from [69.31.174.220] (unknown [69.31.174.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by barium.smartt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60E7B10E53C; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A29A484.7090602@smartt.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:04:36 -0700 From: Chris St Denis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Bertrand References: <4A25A415.5010502@smartt.com> <4A25B309.7000701@smartt.com> <4A25C613.3070301@ibctech.ca> <4A25CC86.90509@smartt.com> <4A25CFA1.50104@ibctech.ca> In-Reply-To: <4A25CFA1.50104@ibctech.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Wojciech Puchar , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: named: error sending response: not enough free resources X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:04:30 -0000 Steve Bertrand wrote: > Chris St Denis wrote: > >> Steve Bertrand wrote: >> > > >>> What type of device is em1 attached to? Is it a switch or a hub? Is it >>> possible to upgrade this? You should upgrade it to 100 (or 1000) >>> anyways. Does this device show any collisions? >>> >>> >> This is a dedicated server in a datacenter. I don't know the exact >> switch specs but it's likely a >> layer 2/3 managed switch. Probably a 1U catalyst. >> > > Do you force 10Mb on your NIC, or do you auto-negotiate that? > > Perhaps before you pay a higher fee, your colo centre could allow you to > connect to a 100Mb port (with perhaps some traffic policing) so you, as > a client, could quickly verify if you want to scale up to their next > tier without having to spend these up-front costs on troubleshooting > this back-asswards. > > >> I can upgrade the connection to 100mbps for a small monthly fee. I've >> left it at 10 because I haven't >> had a need, but with traffic recently growing, this is probably the problem. >> > > Tell the colo that. Tell them you need to test their next tier of service! > > >>> # mail -s "tcpdump output" steve@ipv6canada.com < /var/log/dns.pcap >>> >>> >> I don't think this is necessary. If cutting down the http traffic or >> raising the port speed doesn't >> fix it, I'll look into further debugging with this. >> > > ...one more time, don't attempt to throttle your own traffic to > troubleshoot what looks like a throughput bottleneck. > > Start with the collocation provider. They should, for free, allow you to > have a testing period with their next service tier. Hopefully, they can > do it without having to swap your Ethernet cable into another device. > > If it works during the test, then a small 'migration' and monthly > upgrade fee would be acceptable (if they choose). > > Steve > The problem was resolved by switching to 100Mbps. It's interesting that bind is all that complains about the bandwidth exhaustion, but I guess it's about my only use of UDP and TCP is better able to handle this kind of issue so doesn't complain. -- Chris St Denis Programmer SmarttNet (www.smartt.com) Ph: 604-473-9700 Ext. 200 ------------------------------------------- "Smart Internet Solutions For Businesses"