Hi-- On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND > in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we > upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
+1 > I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS > usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version > in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9.6 from the > ports and at minimum run /usr/local/sbin/named-checkconf to see if any > errors are generated. Of course it would be that much more helpful if > you could also evaluate BIND 9.6 in operation in your environment. dns/bind-9.6 seems to work better for me than the 7-STABLE base version of BIND. [1] No errors from named-checkconf. "make test" (under /usr/ports/dns/bind96/work/bind-9.6-ESV-R3/bin/tests after running .../system/ifconfig.sh up) passed all of the tests; and normal operation serving zones and so forth also work fine. One gripe is that stopping via rc script fails: # grep named /etc/rc.conf named_enable="YES" named_program="/usr/local/sbin/named" # /etc/rc.d/named stop named not running? (check /var/run/named/pid). ...because of the "-t /var/named", probably. Is there a symlink or something I can do to fix this? Regards, -- -Chuck [1]: I did some comparisons, and it appears max-cache-size option wasn't being honored by base named (claims to be BIND 9.4.-ESV-R4) from: FreeBSD example.com 7.4-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.4-PRERELEASE #1: Tue Dec 14 19:55:55 EST 2010 ...whereas top showed that named from dns/bind-9.6 filled its cache under load until it reached the max-cache-size plus a chunk for the recursive clients, and then remained at a stable size afterwards. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
