On Monday 13/10/2014 at 1:32 pm, sch...@adi.com (Thomas Schulz) wrote:
...
Heh thanks, yeah...initially I was erring on the side of caution and
using
9.9.x because it's served us well (~20k recursive clients without any
significant problems). Meanwhile we've been keeping a close eye on
community comments, and to be honest opinions wax and wane. Just as I
think it's stabilized, someone else complains. I suppose sticking to
9.9.x a bit longer is wise.
That said, based on the 9.10.1 fixes, we will run it through our own
perf
tests for comparison. Upgrades are automated and easy, but I'd
obviously
like to go live with the latest version unless there is a strong
technical
reason otherwise.
FYI, 9.9 is the current Extended Support Version (ESV). If you're
looking for a version of BIND with a long period of maintenance, there
will be ongoing 9.9.x, 9.9.x+1 etc. releases and interim patches if
needed.
http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/
I mentioned this earlier, but I have been seeing the very large
increases
in process size with Bind 9.9.5-P1 and 9.9.6b1. I have just installed
9.10.1rc2 on one of our secondary name servers. In time I will be able
to see if 9.10.1rc2 shows a bigger increase in process size than
9.9.5-P1
did. I have restarted 9.9.6b1 with max-cache-size 30M on our primary
server. Both experiments will take some time before I can tell what
is happening.
For those seeing this problem on bind 9.10.1, did you upgrade from
9.9.6
or from an earlier version of bind 9.9.*? As mentioned above, I am
seeing
this problem on 9.9.6. I do not find bind 9.10.1 growing any faster
than
9.9.6 does.
I restarted bind 9.9.6 with a max-cache-size of 30M. We have 3 views.
The inital process size was 36 MB. The process grew to 184 MB. It grew
to 596 MB without the max-cache-size being set and was still growing
when I restarted it. BUT when I now do an rndc dumpdb -cache, the
named_dump.db file contains only the line
; Dump complete
and nothing else.
So, if you put any limit on the cache size, you will end up with an
empty
cache. I do believe that there is a bug that needs to be fixed.
With Freebsd 10.0, I tried the 9.10 leak work around by with
max-cache-size, and it didn't stop the named memory foot print from
growing to 2+ GB.
I need 9.10 for the its white listing of RPZ hits.
I'm building a new Freebsd 9.3 VM and bind 9.10. (vmtools doesn't
support fbsd 10)
Len
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
