Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Emmanuel Fusté]

Hello,

Reading release notes, 9.16.25 is the point release where the default 
memory allocator was switched:

https://downloads.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.16.32/doc/arm/html/notes.html#notes-for-bind-9-16-25

The issue linked https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2398 
is giving lots of interesting informations.


The only thing explaining your observation is that you test machine is 
very low cpu count powered and that the trades of made by the new 
allocator is negative (from mem consumption point of view) in this 
specific artificial corner case : very low powered machine with very 
high zone/record count. Useless in real world scenario.


You could do the test yourself with command-line option -M internal with 
>= 9.16.25


For the other parameter I recalled from memory, it was 
--with-tuning=large/--with-tuning=small but was large since 9.16.0.


Emmanuel.
Le 08/08/2022 à 12:29, Dmitri Pavlov a écrit :

Hi again Ondřej, Emmanuel,

I hope you enjoyed the weekend ?!

Just trying to summarize where we after running a few tests against "zoo of machines" and 
comparing to your lab results.  Please, see the attached "Symmary.jpg"

What we see is the RAM utilization before "<" 9.16.25  (regardless of kernel version 
and GCC) lower than in >= 9.16.25 including 9.18.5 and 9.19.3. Pre 9.16.x results are without 
jemalloc.  And the results are pretty much consistent before 9.16.25 and after. It is 2 GB higher 
in 9.18.x with ~ 100 mil records data set. I understand your previous notes about ridiculousness 
of the given scenario, patch levels, bugs in earlier releases etc But anyway, sorry , the 
question is still open for us -> is there really a change in 9.18.x codebase that allows lower 
RAM utilization as compared vs pre 9.16.25 versions 
https://kb.isc.org/docs/bind-memory-consumption-explained? Or maybe particularly in this scenario, 
when we adding 100 mil records into  to the cache, does not fall under KB scope?

Your response about the KB correctness will help to deliver a better optimized 
business decision.

Thank you very much in advice,
Dmitri.




-Original Message-
From: bind-users  On Behalf Of Ondrej Surý
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 7:48 PM
To: Emmanuel Fusté 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

What Emmanuel said…

--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.


On 4. 8. 2022, at 19:15, Emmanuel Fusté  wrote:

Le 04/08/2022 à 17:48, Dmitri Pavlov a écrit

Therefore, a very small request. Would it be possible on your side to run the same 
experiment as with (BIND 9.16.32 / BIND 9.18.6 / BIND 9.19.4) one more time but 
with BIND 9.16.21 (or any other version in 9.16.x <25 range )?



Why not the opposite ? Why do you insist to run obsolete/inferior patch level 
version ? Who want to run something older than the latest patch release of one 
maintained version and even more a more than ten patch level apart ?
The memory consomption diff is not an argument as it is simply ridiculous vs 
the used scenario.
Reproduce the 9.16.32 scenario, and if it reproduce Ondřej result, the 
conclusion will be evident : bugs in the older patch level as you clearly 
reproduced the 9.18 usage which you could surely reproduce with the 9.19 series 
too.
Do you really prefer to run buggy but less memory hungry version ?

I understand that you want to have answer to you questions. Simply do the 
complete exercise and you will have answers. Don't ask people to do them for 
you.

Emmanuel.

PS: there where a switch on the default runtime config switch to "big server" 
mode sometimes during the 9.16 series if I recall correctly. It perhaps explain the diff.
--
Visit 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-usersdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Kirvq3EkQe239keUeA18xvG%2FOxY8tAhs2yF9AxaoR0Y%3Dreserved=0
 to unsubscribe from this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.isc.org%2Fcontact%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=V1HTBX29PPdDrjG6wHaJ6YU5BrHNymn1oNoaiidh6dk%3Dreserved=0
 for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flis

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Anand Buddhdev]

On 08/08/2022 12:29, Dmitri Pavlov wrote:

Hi Dmitri,


Your response about the KB correctness will help to deliver a better
optimized business decision.


If you're using BIND in your commercial products and making money from 
it, you should consider taking out an ISC support contract, so that you 
support ISC's development of BIND, as well as compensate the ISC 
developers for the time they're spending on answering your questions. If 
the memory issue is really that important to you, then a support 
contract would allow you to get some dedicated attention and time from 
ISC engineers, and make things fairer to them.


Regards,
Anand
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Thank you very much, Team.

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

Dmitri.

-Original Message-
From: bind-users  On Behalf Of Ondrej Surý
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 7:48 PM
To: Emmanuel Fusté 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

What Emmanuel said…

--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 4. 8. 2022, at 19:15, Emmanuel Fusté  wrote:
>
> Le 04/08/2022 à 17:48, Dmitri Pavlov a écrit
>> Therefore, a very small request. Would it be possible on your side to run 
>> the same experiment as with (BIND 9.16.32 / BIND 9.18.6 / BIND 9.19.4) one 
>> more time but with BIND 9.16.21 (or any other version in 9.16.x <25 range )?
>>
>>
> Why not the opposite ? Why do you insist to run obsolete/inferior patch level 
> version ? Who want to run something older than the latest patch release of 
> one maintained version and even more a more than ten patch level apart ?
> The memory consomption diff is not an argument as it is simply ridiculous vs 
> the used scenario.
> Reproduce the 9.16.32 scenario, and if it reproduce Ondřej result, the 
> conclusion will be evident : bugs in the older patch level as you clearly 
> reproduced the 9.18 usage which you could surely reproduce with the 9.19 
> series too.
> Do you really prefer to run buggy but less memory hungry version ?
>
> I understand that you want to have answer to you questions. Simply do the 
> complete exercise and you will have answers. Don't ask people to do them for 
> you.
>
> Emmanuel.
>
> PS: there where a switch on the default runtime config switch to "big server" 
> mode sometimes during the 9.16 series if I recall correctly. It perhaps 
> explain the diff.
> --
> Visit 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-usersdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Kirvq3EkQe239keUeA18xvG%2FOxY8tAhs2yF9AxaoR0Y%3Dreserved=0
>  to unsubscribe from this list
>
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
> Contact us at 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.isc.org%2Fcontact%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=V1HTBX29PPdDrjG6wHaJ6YU5BrHNymn1oNoaiidh6dk%3Dreserved=0
>  for more information.
>
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-usersdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Kirvq3EkQe239keUeA18xvG%2FOxY8tAhs2yF9AxaoR0Y%3Dreserved=0
--
Visit 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-usersdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Kirvq3EkQe239keUeA18xvG%2FOxY8tAhs2yF9AxaoR0Y%3Dreserved=0
 to unsubscribe from this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.isc.org%2Fcontact%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=V1HTBX29PPdDrjG6wHaJ6YU5BrHNymn1oNoaiidh6dk%3Dreserved=0
 for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-usersdata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7Cbf656a835be74993002e08da76391910%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637952284930827181%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Kirvq3EkQe239keUeA18xvG%2FOxY8tAhs2yF9AxaoR0Y%3Dreserved=0


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
on links or open 

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

What Emmanuel said…

--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 4. 8. 2022, at 19:15, Emmanuel Fusté  wrote:
> 
> Le 04/08/2022 à 17:48, Dmitri Pavlov a écrit
>> Therefore, a very small request. Would it be possible on your side to run 
>> the same experiment as with (BIND 9.16.32 / BIND 9.18.6 / BIND 9.19.4) one 
>> more time but with BIND 9.16.21 (or any other version in 9.16.x <25 range )?
>> 
>> 
> Why not the opposite ? Why do you insist to run obsolete/inferior patch level 
> version ? Who want to run something older than the latest patch release of 
> one maintained version and even more a more than ten patch level apart ?
> The memory consomption diff is not an argument as it is simply ridiculous vs 
> the used scenario.
> Reproduce the 9.16.32 scenario, and if it reproduce Ondřej result, the 
> conclusion will be evident : bugs in the older patch level as you clearly 
> reproduced the 9.18 usage which you could surely reproduce with the 9.19 
> series too.
> Do you really prefer to run buggy but less memory hungry version ?
> 
> I understand that you want to have answer to you questions. Simply do the 
> complete exercise and you will have answers. Don't ask people to do them for 
> you.
> 
> Emmanuel.
> 
> PS: there where a switch on the default runtime config switch to "big server" 
> mode sometimes during the 9.16 series if I recall correctly. It perhaps 
> explain the diff.
> -- 
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
> this list
> 
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
> 
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Emmanuel Fusté]

Le 04/08/2022 à 17:48, Dmitri Pavlov a écrit

Therefore, a very small request. Would it be possible on your side to run the same 
experiment as with (BIND 9.16.32 / BIND 9.18.6 / BIND 9.19.4) one more time but 
with BIND 9.16.21 (or any other version in 9.16.x <25 range )?


Why not the opposite ? Why do you insist to run obsolete/inferior patch 
level version ? Who want to run something older than the latest patch 
release of one maintained version and even more a more than ten patch 
level apart ?
The memory consomption diff is not an argument as it is simply 
ridiculous vs the used scenario.
Reproduce the 9.16.32 scenario, and if it reproduce Ondřej result, the 
conclusion will be evident : bugs in the older patch level as you 
clearly reproduced the 9.18 usage which you could surely reproduce with 
the 9.19 series too.

Do you really prefer to run buggy but less memory hungry version ?

I understand that you want to have answer to you questions. Simply do 
the complete exercise and you will have answers. Don't ask people to do 
them for you.


Emmanuel.

PS: there where a switch on the default runtime config switch to "big 
server" mode sometimes during the 9.16 series if I recall correctly. It 
perhaps explain the diff.

--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Hi Ondřej,

Sorry to bother you one more time regarding the same topic.
I have looked through your shared logs one more time. This is what you have 
shared

YOUR LAB RESULTS ARE:
BIND 9.16.32 / BIND 9.18.6 / BIND 9.19.4
RSS:30454872 / RSS:29451056 / RSS:29066580

OUR LAB RESULTS ARE:
BIND 9.16.21 / BIND 9.18.5
RSS:27406208 / RSS:29416180

Therefore, the results 9.18.6: RSS 29451056 (your lab) vs 9.18.5: RSS 29416180 
(our lab) are very close.
However the KB https://kb.isc.org/docs/bind-memory-consumption-explained -> 
BIND Memory Consumption Explained, it is about "increased memory consumption in 
BIND 9.16 up to and including 9.16.24" vs 9.18.x.
As you see the results provided by you from 9.16.32, they neither prove nor 
disapprove what the article describes.

Therefore, a very small request. Would it be possible on your side to run the 
same experiment as with (BIND 9.16.32 / BIND 9.18.6 / BIND 9.19.4) one more 
time but with BIND 9.16.21 (or any other version in 9.16.x <25 range )?

Thank you very much in advance,
Kind regards,
Dmitri.





-Original Message-
From: Ondřej Surý 
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:30 PM
To: Dmitri Pavlov 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

Well, then I don’t know the reason for the difference in your case. And I don’t 
personally see a compelling reason to investigate a 10% increase in artificial 
scenario like this since it apparently doesn’t apply to all scenarios. However, 
you are free to do the further investigation yourself.

We are refactoring the database for storing the resource records in 9.20 and 
it's probably better spent time to work on the refactoring than look at this. 
As usual, we would accept any well commented and well thought patches.

Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 2. 8. 2022, at 17:23, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Resending ... bad format.
>
> dnf install wget bzip2 gcc make -y
> wget
> https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/releases/download/5.3.0/jemalloc-
> 5.3.0.tar.bz2
> bzip2 -d jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 && tar -xf jemalloc-5.3.0.tar && cd
> jemalloc-5.3.0 ./configure make make install reboot -f
>
> Dmitri.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dmitri Pavlov
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:14 PM
> To: Ondřej Surý 
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback, Ondrej.
>
> Sharing the steps. Very simple: configure -> make -> make install. Very 
> simple configuration. Just the zone file is big.  Please, see the attached.
>
> 1. I followed the instructions from here
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbind
> 9.readthedocs.io%2Fen%2Fv9_18_4%2Fchapter10.htmldata=05%7C01%7Cdp
> avlov%40perforce.com%7Cbefcaa04b0ed465b614908da749be1b0%7C95b666d19a75
> 49ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637950510129140945%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> %7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=fY1tDUrmD8F7a2dmMCxKjzoibMjq6oKQr7%2FBF7tvi
> 6E%3Dreserved=0
> No git.
>
> 2. Rocky 9
> uname -a
> Linux server.test.zone 5.14.0-70.17.1.el9_0.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed
> Jul 13 18:23:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Package
> gcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64
>
> 9.18.5
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 27821 | tail -n 1
> total kB 34853832 29425312 29416180
>
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  27821 0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1
> = = =
>
> 9.16.21
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 18026 | tail -n 1
> total kB 28161152 27414164 27406208
>
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  18026 0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G
> = = =
>
> 2 GB diff is still there.
>
> Steps have been attached.
>
> Will be very grateful,  could you please, have a look at the steps provided? 
> They are quite straightforward and self-explanatory. What is that "magic 
> souse" I should apply, when there is Rocky 9 or RHEL 9 machine in front of 
> me.  I believe if I replicate your setup/steps, most likely I'll get the same 
> output. However, if looking at the articles available to the wide au

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Thank you very much, Ondrej,

There is a KB https://kb.isc.org/docs/bind-memory-consumption-explained
==
Overview
BIND users upgrading from BIND 9.11 versions to BIND 9.16 may notice increased 
memory consumption. This article explains in detail how BIND allocates memory 
in 9.16, and 9.17/9.18, and how refactoring resulted in increased memory 
consumption in BIND 9.16 up to and including 9.16.24. There is a change in BIND 
9.18.0, which is partly backported to 9.16.25, which reduces BIND's memory 
consumption down to levels similar to those with 9.11.
===

There is another KB  https://kb.isc.org/docs/supported-platforms

Putting those 2 together, it looks like, we do not do anything "illegal" so to 
say.

And, unfortunately, we have not discovered a memory reduction scenario except 
for the snippet from your sophisticated lab.

"it's probably better spent time to work on the refactoring than look at this", 
I totally agree on this. It is a free product and therefore we are not in a 
rush. Any reasonable timeline would be fine for us.

Thanking you for patience one more time,
Dmitri.


-Original Message-
From: Ondřej Surý 
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:30 PM
To: Dmitri Pavlov 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

Well, then I don’t know the reason for the difference in your case. And I don’t 
personally see a compelling reason to investigate a 10% increase in artificial 
scenario like this since it apparently doesn’t apply to all scenarios. However, 
you are free to do the further investigation yourself.

We are refactoring the database for storing the resource records in 9.20 and 
it's probably better spent time to work on the refactoring than look at this. 
As usual, we would accept any well commented and well thought patches.

Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 2. 8. 2022, at 17:23, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Resending ... bad format.
>
> dnf install wget bzip2 gcc make -y
> wget
> https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/releases/download/5.3.0/jemalloc-
> 5.3.0.tar.bz2
> bzip2 -d jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 && tar -xf jemalloc-5.3.0.tar && cd
> jemalloc-5.3.0 ./configure make make install reboot -f
>
> Dmitri.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dmitri Pavlov
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:14 PM
> To: Ondřej Surý 
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback, Ondrej.
>
> Sharing the steps. Very simple: configure -> make -> make install. Very 
> simple configuration. Just the zone file is big.  Please, see the attached.
>
> 1. I followed the instructions from here
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbind
> 9.readthedocs.io%2Fen%2Fv9_18_4%2Fchapter10.htmldata=05%7C01%7Cdp
> avlov%40perforce.com%7Cbefcaa04b0ed465b614908da749be1b0%7C95b666d19a75
> 49ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637950510129140945%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> %7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=fY1tDUrmD8F7a2dmMCxKjzoibMjq6oKQr7%2FBF7tvi
> 6E%3Dreserved=0
> No git.
>
> 2. Rocky 9
> uname -a
> Linux server.test.zone 5.14.0-70.17.1.el9_0.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed
> Jul 13 18:23:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Package
> gcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64
>
> 9.18.5
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 27821 | tail -n 1
> total kB 34853832 29425312 29416180
>
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  27821 0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1
> = = =
>
> 9.16.21
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 18026 | tail -n 1
> total kB 28161152 27414164 27406208
>
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  18026 0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G
> = = =
>
> 2 GB diff is still there.
>
> Steps have been attached.
>
> Will be very grateful,  could you please, have a look at the steps provided? 
> They are quite straightforward and self-explanatory. What is that "magic 
> souse" I should apply, when there is Rocky 9 or RHEL 9 machine in front of 
> me.  I believe if I replicate your setup/steps, most likely I'll get the same 
> output. However, if looking at the articles available to the wid

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Hi,

#9.18.5
Configuration summary:
---
Optional features enabled:
Memory allocator: jemalloc
DNSSEC validation active by default (--enable-auto-validation)
---
Features disabled or unavailable on this platform:
Small-system tuning (--with-tuning)
.

[root@server ~]# ldd /usr/local/sbin/named
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7fff81cd7000)
libisc-9.18.5.so => /usr/local/lib/libisc-9.18.5.so (0x7f9f5ee6)
libdns-9.18.5.so => /usr/local/lib/libdns-9.18.5.so (0x7f9f5ec63000)
libns-9.18.5.so => /usr/local/lib/libns-9.18.5.so (0x7f9f5ec19000)
libisccc-9.18.5.so => /usr/local/lib/libisccc-9.18.5.so 
(0x7f9f5ec0f000)
libisccfg-9.18.5.so => /usr/local/lib/libisccfg-9.18.5.so 
(0x7f9f5ebd8000)
libbind9-9.18.5.so => /usr/local/lib/libbind9-9.18.5.so 
(0x7f9f5ebbf000)
libssl.so.3 => /lib64/libssl.so.3 (0x7f9f5eb16000)
libcrypto.so.3 => /lib64/libcrypto.so.3 (0x7f9f5e6ea000)
libcap.so.2 => /lib64/libcap.so.2 (0x7f9f5e6e)
libuv.so.1 => /lib64/libuv.so.1 (0x7f9f5e6ad000)
libnghttp2.so.14 => /lib64/libnghttp2.so.14 (0x7f9f5e683000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x7f9f5e479000)
libjemalloc.so.2 => /usr/local/lib/libjemalloc.so.2 (0x7f9f5e1ba000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f9f5f3f2000)
libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x7f9f5e1a)
libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x7f9f5e0c5000)
[root@server ~]#  strings /usr/local/lib/libjemalloc.so.2  | grep 
JEMALLOC_VERSION
JEMALLOC_VERSION_GID_IDENT 54eaed1d8b56b1aa528be3bdd1877e59c56fa90c
JEMALLOC_VERSION_MAJOR 5
JEMALLOC_VERSION_NREV 0
JEMALLOC_VERSION_BUGFIX 0
JEMALLOC_VERSION_MINOR 3
JEMALLOC_VERSION "5.3.0-0-g54eaed1d8b56b1aa528be3bdd1877e59c56fa90c"
JEMALLOC_VERSION_GID "54eaed1d8b56b1aa528be3bdd1877e59c56fa90c"

Dmitri.
-Original Message-
From: Anand Buddhdev 
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:42 PM
To: Dmitri Pavlov 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

Dmitri,

Just downloading, building and installing the latest version of jemalloc like 
this doesn't mean that BIND will find and use it. BIND has to be compiled with 
the correct compiler and linker flags to use this version.

Are you certain BIND is using your installed version?

--
Anand

On 02/08/2022 17:21, Dmitri Pavlov wrote:

> dnf install wget bzip2 gcc make -y
> wget
> https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/releases/download/5.3.0/jemalloc-
> 5.3.0.tar.bz2
> bzip2 -d jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 && tar -xf jemalloc-5.3.0.tar && cd
> jemalloc-5.3.0 ./configure make make install reboot -f


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments 
and notify us immediately.

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Anand Buddhdev]

Dmitri,

Just downloading, building and installing the latest version of jemalloc 
like this doesn't mean that BIND will find and use it. BIND has to be 
compiled with the correct compiler and linker flags to use this version.


Are you certain BIND is using your installed version?

--
Anand

On 02/08/2022 17:21, Dmitri Pavlov wrote:


dnf install wget bzip2 gcc make -y
wget 
https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/releases/download/5.3.0/jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2
bzip2 -d jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 && tar -xf jemalloc-5.3.0.tar && cd 
jemalloc-5.3.0
./configure
make
make install
reboot -f

--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

Well, then I don’t know the reason for the difference in your case. And I don’t 
personally see a compelling reason to investigate a 10% increase in artificial 
scenario like this since it apparently doesn’t apply to all scenarios. However, 
you are free to do the further investigation yourself.

We are refactoring the database for storing the resource records in 9.20 and 
it's probably better spent time to work on the refactoring than look at this. 
As usual, we would accept any well commented and well thought patches.

Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 2. 8. 2022, at 17:23, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Resending ... bad format.
> 
> dnf install wget bzip2 gcc make -y
> wget 
> https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/releases/download/5.3.0/jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2
> bzip2 -d jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 && tar -xf jemalloc-5.3.0.tar && cd 
> jemalloc-5.3.0
> ./configure
> make
> make install
> reboot -f
> 
> Dmitri.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dmitri Pavlov
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:14 PM
> To: Ondřej Surý 
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you very much for your feedback, Ondrej.
> 
> Sharing the steps. Very simple: configure -> make -> make install. Very 
> simple configuration. Just the zone file is big.  Please, see the attached.
> 
> 1. I followed the instructions from here 
> https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html
> No git.
> 
> 2. Rocky 9
> uname -a
> Linux server.test.zone 5.14.0-70.17.1.el9_0.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Jul 13 
> 18:23:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Package 
> gcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64
> 
> 9.18.5
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 27821 | tail -n 1
> total kB 34853832 29425312 29416180
> 
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  27821 0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1
> = = =
> 
> 9.16.21
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 18026 | tail -n 1
> total kB 28161152 27414164 27406208
> 
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  18026 0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G
> = = =
> 
> 2 GB diff is still there.
> 
> Steps have been attached.
> 
> Will be very grateful,  could you please, have a look at the steps provided? 
> They are quite straightforward and self-explanatory. What is that "magic 
> souse" I should apply, when there is Rocky 9 or RHEL 9 machine in front of 
> me.  I believe if I replicate your setup/steps, most likely I'll get the same 
> output. However, if looking at the articles available to the wide audience 
> (like this https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html or any 
> other(?)), what should my steps be to get the expected smaller memory 
> footprint.  Or maybe there are obvious flaws in the experiment?
> 
> Thanking you very much for patience and cooperation, Dmitri.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ondřej Surý 
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:18 PM
> To: Dmitri Pavlov 
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> 
> $ wc -l gen.db
> 1 gen.db
> 
> generated with:
> 
> #!/bin/env python3
> 
> for x in range(0, 1):
>for y in range(0, 2500):
>print(f"az{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.1")
>print(f"bz{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.2")
>print(f"ca{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.3")
>print(f"xh{x}-{y} IN CNAME az{x}-{y}”)
> 
> ## BIND 9.16(git)
> 
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 starting BIND 9.16.32-dev (Extended Support Version) 
> 
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP 
> Debian 5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 built with 'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast -ggdb 
> -Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
> -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
> -DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
> '--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
> '--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
> '--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Hi,

Resending ... bad format.

dnf install wget bzip2 gcc make -y
wget 
https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/releases/download/5.3.0/jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2
bzip2 -d jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 && tar -xf jemalloc-5.3.0.tar && cd 
jemalloc-5.3.0
./configure
make
make install
reboot -f

Dmitri.



-Original Message-
From: Dmitri Pavlov
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:14 PM
To: Ondřej Surý 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

Hi,

Thank you very much for your feedback, Ondrej.

Sharing the steps. Very simple: configure -> make -> make install. Very simple 
configuration. Just the zone file is big.  Please, see the attached.

1. I followed the instructions from here 
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html
No git.

2. Rocky 9
uname -a
Linux server.test.zone 5.14.0-70.17.1.el9_0.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Jul 13 
18:23:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Package 
gcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64

9.18.5
= OUTPUT =
pmap -x 27821 | tail -n 1
total kB 34853832 29425312 29416180

smemstat -p named
PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
  27821 0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1 G root   /usr/local/sbin/named
Total:  0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1
= = =

9.16.21
= OUTPUT =
pmap -x 18026 | tail -n 1
total kB 28161152 27414164 27406208

smemstat -p named
PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
  18026 0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G root   /usr/local/sbin/named
Total:  0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G
= = =

2 GB diff is still there.

Steps have been attached.

Will be very grateful,  could you please, have a look at the steps provided? 
They are quite straightforward and self-explanatory. What is that "magic souse" 
I should apply, when there is Rocky 9 or RHEL 9 machine in front of me.  I 
believe if I replicate your setup/steps, most likely I'll get the same output. 
However, if looking at the articles available to the wide audience (like this 
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html or any other(?)), what 
should my steps be to get the expected smaller memory footprint.  Or maybe 
there are obvious flaws in the experiment?

Thanking you very much for patience and cooperation, Dmitri.




-Original Message-
From: Ondřej Surý 
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:18 PM
To: Dmitri Pavlov 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

$ wc -l gen.db
1 gen.db

generated with:

#!/bin/env python3

for x in range(0, 1):
for y in range(0, 2500):
print(f"az{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.1")
print(f"bz{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.2")
print(f"ca{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.3")
print(f"xh{x}-{y} IN CNAME az{x}-{y}”)

## BIND 9.16(git)

01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 starting BIND 9.16.32-dev (Extended Support Version) 

01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 built with 'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast -ggdb 
-Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
-DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
'--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
'--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
'--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:'
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled by GCC 12.0.1 20220319 (experimental) [master 
r12-7719-g8ca61ad148f]
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11

$ smem -P name[d] -a
SWAP:193304 USS:30451812 PSS:30452272 RSS:30454872

## BIND 9.18(git)

01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 starting BIND 9.18.6-dev (Stable Release) 
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 built with  'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast  -ggdb 
-Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
-DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
'--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
'--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnst

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

dnf install wget bzip2 gcc make -y
wget 
https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/releases/download/5.3.0/jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2
bzip2 -d jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 && tar -xf jemalloc-5.3.0.tar && cd 
jemalloc-5.3.0
./configure
make
make install
reboot -f

-Original Message-
From: Ondřej Surý 
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Dmitri Pavlov 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

I don’t see jemalloc anywhere in your setup scripts. Preferably use the latest 
upstream jemalloc version available.

Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 2. 8. 2022, at 17:14, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback, Ondrej.
>
> Sharing the steps. Very simple: configure -> make -> make install. Very 
> simple configuration. Just the zone file is big.  Please, see the attached.
>
> 1. I followed the instructions from here
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbind
> 9.readthedocs.io%2Fen%2Fv9_18_4%2Fchapter10.htmldata=05%7C01%7Cdp
> avlov%40perforce.com%7C0b7e44da128441c5ac7f08da749a8391%7C95b666d19a75
> 49ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637950504233087258%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> %7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=v2cHf%2BQX%2FWMERTf%2F3H8HJYTXq2W6Y5mWjr%2B
> AedpXhho%3Dreserved=0
> No git.
>
> 2. Rocky 9
> uname -a
> Linux server.test.zone 5.14.0-70.17.1.el9_0.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed
> Jul 13 18:23:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Package
> gcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64
>
> 9.18.5
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 27821 | tail -n 1
> total kB 34853832 29425312 29416180
>
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  27821 0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1
> = = =
>
> 9.16.21
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 18026 | tail -n 1
> total kB 28161152 27414164 27406208
>
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  18026 0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G
> = = =
>
> 2 GB diff is still there.
>
> Steps have been attached.
>
> Will be very grateful,  could you please, have a look at the steps provided? 
> They are quite straightforward and self-explanatory. What is that "magic 
> souse" I should apply, when there is Rocky 9 or RHEL 9 machine in front of 
> me.  I believe if I replicate your setup/steps, most likely I'll get the same 
> output. However, if looking at the articles available to the wide audience 
> (like this 
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbind9.readthedocs.io%2Fen%2Fv9_18_4%2Fchapter10.htmldata=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7C0b7e44da128441c5ac7f08da749a8391%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637950504233087258%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=v2cHf%2BQX%2FWMERTf%2F3H8HJYTXq2W6Y5mWjr%2BAedpXhho%3Dreserved=0
>  or any other(?)), what should my steps be to get the expected smaller memory 
> footprint.  Or maybe there are obvious flaws in the experiment?
>
> Thanking you very much for patience and cooperation, Dmitri.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ondřej Surý 
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:18 PM
> To: Dmitri Pavlov 
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
>
> $ wc -l gen.db
> 1 gen.db
>
> generated with:
>
> #!/bin/env python3
>
> for x in range(0, 1):
>for y in range(0, 2500):
>print(f"az{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.1")
>print(f"bz{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.2")
>print(f"ca{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.3")
>print(f"xh{x}-{y} IN CNAME az{x}-{y}”)
>
> ## BIND 9.16(git)
>
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 starting BIND 9.16.32-dev (Extended Support Version) 
> 
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP 
> Debian 5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 built with 'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast -ggdb 
> -Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
> -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
> -DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
> '--with-openssl' '--with-z

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

I don’t see jemalloc anywhere in your setup scripts. Preferably use the latest 
upstream jemalloc version available.

Ondřej 
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 2. 8. 2022, at 17:14, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you very much for your feedback, Ondrej.
> 
> Sharing the steps. Very simple: configure -> make -> make install. Very 
> simple configuration. Just the zone file is big.  Please, see the attached.
> 
> 1. I followed the instructions from here 
> https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html
> No git.
> 
> 2. Rocky 9
> uname -a
> Linux server.test.zone 5.14.0-70.17.1.el9_0.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Jul 13 
> 18:23:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> Package gcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64
> 
> 9.18.5
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 27821 | tail -n 1
> total kB 34853832 29425312 29416180
> 
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  27821 0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1
> = = =
> 
> 9.16.21
> = OUTPUT =
> pmap -x 18026 | tail -n 1
> total kB 28161152 27414164 27406208
> 
> smemstat -p named
>PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
>  18026 0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G root   
> /usr/local/sbin/named
> Total:  0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G
> = = =
> 
> 2 GB diff is still there.
> 
> Steps have been attached.
> 
> Will be very grateful,  could you please, have a look at the steps provided? 
> They are quite straightforward and self-explanatory. What is that "magic 
> souse" I should apply, when there is Rocky 9 or RHEL 9 machine in front of 
> me.  I believe if I replicate your setup/steps, most likely I'll get the same 
> output. However, if looking at the articles available to the wide audience 
> (like this https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html or any 
> other(?)), what should my steps be to get the expected smaller memory 
> footprint.  Or maybe there are obvious flaws in the experiment?
> 
> Thanking you very much for patience and cooperation,
> Dmitri.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ondřej Surý 
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:18 PM
> To: Dmitri Pavlov 
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> 
> $ wc -l gen.db
> 1 gen.db
> 
> generated with:
> 
> #!/bin/env python3
> 
> for x in range(0, 1):
>for y in range(0, 2500):
>print(f"az{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.1")
>print(f"bz{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.2")
>print(f"ca{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.3")
>print(f"xh{x}-{y} IN CNAME az{x}-{y}”)
> 
> ## BIND 9.16(git)
> 
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 starting BIND 9.16.32-dev (Extended Support Version) 
> 
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP 
> Debian 5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 built with 'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast -ggdb 
> -Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
> -fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
> -DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
> '--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
> '--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
> '--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:'
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled by GCC 12.0.1 20220319 (experimental) 
> [master r12-7719-g8ca61ad148f]
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 
> 2022
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to json-c version: 0.15
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
> 01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11
> 
> $ smem -P name[d] -a
> SWAP:193304 USS:30451812 PSS:30452272 RSS:30454872
> 
> ## BIND 9.18(git)
> 
> 01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 starting BIND 9.18.6-dev (Stable Release) 
> 
> 01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 S

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Hi,

Thank you very much for your feedback, Ondrej.

Sharing the steps. Very simple: configure -> make -> make install. Very simple 
configuration. Just the zone file is big.  Please, see the attached.

1. I followed the instructions from here 
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html
No git.

2. Rocky 9
uname -a
Linux server.test.zone 5.14.0-70.17.1.el9_0.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed Jul 13 
18:23:04 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Package gcc-11.2.1-9.4.el9.x86_64

9.18.5
= OUTPUT =
pmap -x 27821 | tail -n 1
total kB 34853832 29425312 29416180

smemstat -p named
PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
  27821 0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1 G root   /usr/local/sbin/named
Total:  0.0 B28.1 G28.1 G28.1
= = =

9.16.21
= OUTPUT =
pmap -x 18026 | tail -n 1
total kB 28161152 27414164 27406208

smemstat -p named
PID  Swap   USS   PSS   RSS User   Command
  18026 0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G root   /usr/local/sbin/named
Total:  0.0 B26.1 G26.1 G26.1 G
= = =

2 GB diff is still there.

Steps have been attached.

Will be very grateful,  could you please, have a look at the steps provided? 
They are quite straightforward and self-explanatory. What is that "magic souse" 
I should apply, when there is Rocky 9 or RHEL 9 machine in front of me.  I 
believe if I replicate your setup/steps, most likely I'll get the same output. 
However, if looking at the articles available to the wide audience (like this 
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9_18_4/chapter10.html or any other(?)), what 
should my steps be to get the expected smaller memory footprint.  Or maybe 
there are obvious flaws in the experiment?

Thanking you very much for patience and cooperation,
Dmitri.




-Original Message-
From: Ondřej Surý 
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:18 PM
To: Dmitri Pavlov 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

$ wc -l gen.db
1 gen.db

generated with:

#!/bin/env python3

for x in range(0, 1):
for y in range(0, 2500):
print(f"az{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.1")
print(f"bz{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.2")
print(f"ca{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.3")
print(f"xh{x}-{y} IN CNAME az{x}-{y}”)

## BIND 9.16(git)

01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 starting BIND 9.16.32-dev (Extended Support Version) 

01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 built with 'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast -ggdb 
-Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
-DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
'--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
'--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
'--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:'
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled by GCC 12.0.1 20220319 (experimental) [master 
r12-7719-g8ca61ad148f]
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11

$ smem -P name[d] -a
SWAP:193304 USS:30451812 PSS:30452272 RSS:30454872

## BIND 9.18(git)

01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 starting BIND 9.18.6-dev (Stable Release) 
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 built with  'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast  -ggdb 
-Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
-DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
'--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
'--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
'--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:'
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled by GCC 12.0.1 20220319 (experimental) [master 
r12-7719-g8ca61ad148f]
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

Retesting with stock Debian bullseye (with extra OpenSSL 3.0.0)
and default configuration options:

TL;DR
9.16(git): 30648752
9.18(git): 30081280

So, pretty consistent with what I’ve seen here so far. And it seems that
the extra (developer) configure options, I’ve been using before have
little/no effect on the memory.

The 554MB less memory makes quite a sense because couple of bytes
related to MAP format has been removed from dns_rbtnode structure.

So, these are the results for just ./configure && make on Debian bullseye:

## BIND 9.16

01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 starting BIND 9.16.32-dev (Extended Support Version) 

01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 built with defaults
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 compiled by GCC 10.2.1 20210110
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 linked to json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 BIND 9 is maintained by Internet Systems Consortium,
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 Inc. (ISC), a non-profit 501(c)(3) public-benefit
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 corporation.  Support and training for BIND 9 are
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 available at https://www.isc.org/support
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 found 8 CPUs, using 8 worker threads
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.335 using 8 UDP listeners per interface
01-Aug-2022 22:00:18.339 using up to 21000 sockets

Swap:0 USS:30648752 PSS:30649262 RSS:30652112

## BIND 9.18

01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 starting BIND 9.18.6-dev (Stable Release) 
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 built with default
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 compiled by GCC 10.2.1 20210110
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 linked to json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 BIND 9 is maintained by Internet Systems Consortium,
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 Inc. (ISC), a non-profit 501(c)(3) public-benefit
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 corporation.  Support and training for BIND 9 are
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 available at https://www.isc.org/support
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 found 8 CPUs, using 8 worker threads
01-Aug-2022 22:09:59.363 using 8 UDP listeners per interface

Swap:488612 USS:29592668 PSS:29593610 RSS:29596988

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 1. 8. 2022, at 20:05, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> Thank you very much for the swift response, Ondrej,
> 
> You are right.  Local configuration is more "trivial" so to say -> it is RHEL 
> 7.9 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 with gcc-4.8.5-44.el7.x86_64.
> 
> Our installation / test flow was very basic. The records generation part is 
> different though , using shell script basically.  Unique IPs were linked with 
> unique CNAMEs.
> 
> The build process is very simple for all components: download -> configure -> 
> make -> make install. All default values.
> 
> The only custom part is named.conf -> a single zone configured and custom 
> hosts files. That is it.
> 
> We will test with a higher kernel.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Dmitri.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Ondřej Surý 
> Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:46 PM
> To: Dmitri Pavlov 
> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> 
>> On 1. 8. 2022, at 17:19, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
>> 
>> I’m pretty much sure you will get the same results

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

> On 1. 8. 2022, at 20:05, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
> The records generation part is different though , using shell script 
> basically.  Unique IPs were linked with unique CNAMEs.

I would need the exact algorithm how did you generate the zones.

BTW using shell for this takes ages. Generating zone with the Python is several 
magnitudes faster.

But first, try the same scenario on RHEL 9 (or any other current clone). There 
might be some better/smarter struct packing in more recent compiler or 
something like that.

> The build process is very simple for all components: download -> configure -> 
> make -> make install. All default values.

I’ll try that. I have a custom script that tweaks some values (you can see that 
in the log snippets I sent).

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Thank you very much for the swift response, Ondrej,

You are right.  Local configuration is more "trivial" so to say -> it is RHEL 
7.9 3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 with gcc-4.8.5-44.el7.x86_64.

Our installation / test flow was very basic. The records generation part is 
different though , using shell script basically.  Unique IPs were linked with 
unique CNAMEs.

The build process is very simple for all components: download -> configure -> 
make -> make install. All default values.

The only custom part is named.conf -> a single zone configured and custom hosts 
files. That is it.

We will test with a higher kernel.

Kind regards,
Dmitri.









-Original Message-
From: Ondřej Surý 
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:46 PM
To: Dmitri Pavlov 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

> On 1. 8. 2022, at 17:19, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
>
> I’m pretty much sure you will get the same results in your lab.

I don’t want to delve into vague description of your experiment. You’ll have to 
share the exact scripts.

Even this:

> just the time-consuming task is to generate 100 MIL A + CNAME dummy records 
> into the zone file.

could be violently different. Are those random names? Or deterministically 
generated? What are the CNAME targets?

What is the exact `named.conf`?

What are the exact library versions? What is the exact ./configure invocation?

How do you execute `named`?

And yet again - the memory statistics from the statschannel could show the 
breakdown of the internal memory contexts and also show if there’s a difference 
between the internally reported memory usage and externally reported memory 
usage, e.g. is this something allocated in named, or is this allocated in the 
libraries?

> Should the memory reduction apply to our experiment?

The question doesn’t really make sense.  We have not measured any increase in 
our test scenarios, which doesn’t mean you can’t find different scenarios with 
a memory increase.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments 
and notify us immediately.

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

$ wc -l gen.db
1 gen.db

generated with:

#!/bin/env python3

for x in range(0, 1):
for y in range(0, 2500):
print(f"az{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.1")
print(f"bz{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.2")
print(f"ca{x}-{y} IN A 10.53.0.3")
print(f"xh{x}-{y} IN CNAME az{x}-{y}”)

## BIND 9.16(git)

01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 starting BIND 9.16.32-dev (Extended Support Version) 

01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 built with 'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast -ggdb 
-Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
-DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
'--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
'--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
'--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:'
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled by GCC 12.0.1 20220319 (experimental) [master 
r12-7719-g8ca61ad148f]
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 19:06:27.151 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11

$ smem -P name[d] -a
SWAP:193304 USS:30451812 PSS:30452272 RSS:30454872

## BIND 9.18(git)

01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 starting BIND 9.18.6-dev (Stable Release) 
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 built with  'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast  -ggdb 
-Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
-DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
'--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
'--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
'--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:'
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled by GCC 12.0.1 20220319 (experimental) [master 
r12-7719-g8ca61ad148f]
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 linked to json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 18:12:57.227 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11

$ smem -P name[d] -a
SWAP:645960 USS:29446788 PSS:29447529 RSS:29451056

## BIND 9.19(git)

01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 starting BIND 9.19.4-dev (Development Release) 

01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 running on Linux x86_64 5.10.0-16-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
5.10.127-1 (2022-06-30)
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 built with  'CC=gcc-12' 'LD=' 'CFLAGS=-Ofast  -ggdb 
-Wno-deprecated-declarations -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-optimize-sibling-calls -DISC_MEM_USE_INTERNAL_MALLOC=0 
-DISC_MEM_TRACKLINES=1' 'LDFLAGS=' '--enable-developer' '--enable-warn-error' 
'--with-openssl' '--with-zlib' '--with-libxml2' '--with-json-c' 
'--with-readline' '--with-libidn2' '--enable-dnstap' '--with-libtool' 
'--without-make-clean' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/home/ondrej/.local/lib/pkgconfig:'
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 running as: named -c named.conf -g -p 12345
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 compiled by GCC 12.0.1 20220319 (experimental) [master 
r12-7719-g8ca61ad148f]
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 3.0.5 5 Jul 2022
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.10
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 linked to libxml2 version: 20910
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 compiled with json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 linked to json-c version: 0.15
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 compiled with zlib version: 1.2.11
01-Aug-2022 18:18:20.127 linked to zlib version: 1.2.11

$ smem -P name[d] -a
SWAP:1032108 USS:29062164 PSS:29062968 RSS:29066580

So, it’s (USS+Swap):
9.16(git): 30645116
9.18(git): 30092748
9.19(git): 30094272

So, no, I am unable to reproduce the results and yet again, I see a lower 
memory usage with 9.18+.

But I see a common pattern here. I think both you and the OP were using 
CentOS/RHEL 7 which is using GCC 4.8.

GCC was improved significantly since then. I would suggest to repeat the 
experiment 

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

> On 1. 8. 2022, at 17:19, Dmitri Pavlov  wrote:
> 
> I’m pretty much sure you will get the same results in your lab.

I don’t want to delve into vague description of your experiment. You’ll have to
share the exact scripts.

Even this:

> just the time-consuming task is to generate 100 MIL A + CNAME dummy records 
> into the zone file.

could be violently different. Are those random names? Or deterministically 
generated? What are
the CNAME targets?

What is the exact `named.conf`?

What are the exact library versions? What is the exact ./configure invocation?

How do you execute `named`?

And yet again - the memory statistics from the statschannel could show the 
breakdown of the
internal memory contexts and also show if there’s a difference between the 
internally reported
memory usage and externally reported memory usage, e.g. is this something 
allocated in named,
or is this allocated in the libraries?

> Should the memory reduction apply to our experiment?

The question doesn’t really make sense.  We have not measured any increase in 
our test scenarios,
which doesn’t mean you can’t find different scenarios with a memory increase.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Hi,

Sorry one more thing. It is not a memory leak . In the experiment the data is 
being pulled from the disk zone file and loaded into memory. Then the process 
sits idle. RAM utilization is stable.  In other words, it is a footprint of the 
file into the cache. Easy experiment -> just the time-consuming task is to 
generate 100 MIL A + CANME dummy records into the zone file.

#9.18.5
/usr/local/sbin/named -v
BIND 9.18.5 (Stable Release) 
3.10.0-1160.71.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jun 15 08:55:08 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 
x86_64 GNU/Linux
Virtualized AWS EC2 - Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz 8 CORE / 
32 GB ram
Named.file as simple as possible as the experiment is only to measure a memory 
footprint of “many” records.


#BIND 9.16.21
/usr/local/sbin/named -v
BIND 9.16.21 (Extended Support Version) 
#Other parameters are the same.
Named.file as simple as possible as the experiment is only to measure a memory 
footprint of “many” records.

Regards,
Dmitri.


From: bind-users  On Behalf Of Dmitri Pavlov
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:19 PM
To: Victoria Risk 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org; Ond≈ôej Sur√Ω 
Subject: RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

Thank you ISC,

New run with the same input

#9.18.5
pmap -x ... | tail -n 1
total kB 34892476 29399048 29395316

#9.16.21
pmap -x ... | tail -n 1
total kB 27935060 27341676 27338344

The diff. Is still the same ~ 2 GB.

I’m pretty much sure you will get the same results in your lab.  My guess the 
earlier experiment with 1 mil zones and small number of machines could not 
visualize the diff.

With 100 MIL of records the diff. is more visual.

Hence the same question -> Should the memory reduction apply to our experiment? 
Please let us know if any additional details about our experiment are required.

Regards,
Dmitri.



From: bind-users 
mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org>> On 
Behalf Of Victoria Risk
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:08 PM
To: Doug Whitfield mailto:dwhitfi...@perforce.com>>
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org<mailto:bind-users@lists.isc.org>; Ond≈ôej Sur√Ω 
mailto:ond...@isc.org>>
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

Hi Doug,

I think Ondrej is referring to this post from a prior month: 
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2022-June/106350.html<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fpipermail%2Fbind-users%2F2022-June%2F106350.html=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7C32439a5f16474cb8331608da73d1433c%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637949639865510996%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=9gRb3fv14k1DAieNwnoJ%2BAp1T9caTv32cAKWh4YUqdY%3D=0>

….
For tips on how to measure memory usage you might want to look at 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/131303/how-can-i-measure-the-actual-memory-usage-of-an-application-or-process<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F131303%2Fhow-can-i-measure-the-actual-memory-usage-of-an-application-or-process=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7C32439a5f16474cb8331608da73d1433c%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637949639865510996%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=q7aTYA6yrB7ZjRRyJrC0y4zrUK4M7IM6UUyqxFoFp38%3D=0>
 …..

Also note the comment about ignoring ’total’ memory.

Vicky

On Aug 1, 2022, at 10:32 AM, Ondřej Surý 
mailto:ond...@isc.org>> wrote:

On 1. 8. 2022, at 16:14, Doug Whitfield 
mailto:dwhitfi...@perforce.com>> wrote:

as monitored from "top" RES value

Please read the whole thread on measuring the real consumed memory.

The '“top” RES value' has little or no value at all.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org<mailto:ond...@isc.org>

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.


--
Visit 
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-users=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7C32439a5f16474cb8331608da73d1433c%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637949639865510996%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=PXqs4J3AOnLLp0KRdKhAHXgGQqd1AVWMKsge4pRtK3c%3D=0>
 to unsubscribe from this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at 
https://www.isc.org/contact/<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.isc.org%2Fcontact%2F=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7C32439a5f16474cb8331608da73d1433c%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637949639865510996%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=sH%2FVsjink11lqv

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Sten Carlsen]

-- 
Best regards 
Sten Carlsen 

--
Aoccdrnig to rseerach at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a
wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the
frist and lsat lteter be at the rghit pclae.
The rset can be a ttoal mses and you can slitl
raed it wotihut porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the
hmuan mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef,
but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig, huh?
--

> On 1 Aug 2022, at 17.08, Victoria Risk  wrote:
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> I think Ondrej is referring to this post from a prior month: 
> https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2022-June/106350.html 
> 
> 
> ….
> For tips on how to measure memory usage you might want to look at 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/131303/how-can-i-measure-the-actual-memory-usage-of-an-application-or-process
>  
> 
>  …..
> 
> Also note the comment about ignoring ’total’ memory.
> 
> Vicky
> 
>> On Aug 1, 2022, at 10:32 AM, Ondřej Surý > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1. 8. 2022, at 16:14, Doug Whitfield >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> as monitored from "top" RES value
>> 
>> Please read the whole thread on measuring the real consumed memory.
>> 
>> The '“top” RES value' has little or no value at all.

Looking at this discussion from the outside, it seems to me that the point of 
contention here is the question: What is the correct way to measure memory 
consumption?

From reading the mails, it seems that one side wants to compare what Bind 
reports internally and which may not count everything the OS has allocated for 
that process and the other side just wants to know how much memory is not 
available for other tasks when this is running.

May I suggest that the discussion first agrees what to measure and then agrees 
on a method for measuring that number.

>> 
>> Ondrej
>> --
>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
>> ond...@isc.org 
>> 
>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
>> obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
>> this list
>> 
>> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
>> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
>> 
>> 
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-users@lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
> 
> -- 
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
> this list
> 
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
> 
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

RE: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Dmitri Pavlov]

Thank you ISC,

New run with the same input

#9.18.5
pmap -x ... | tail -n 1
total kB 34892476 29399048 29395316

#9.16.21
pmap -x ... | tail -n 1
total kB 27935060 27341676 27338344

The diff. Is still the same ~ 2 GB.

I’m pretty much sure you will get the same results in your lab.  My guess the 
earlier experiment with 1 mil zones and small number of machines could not 
visualize the diff.

With 100 MIL of records the diff. is more visual.

Hence the same question -> Should the memory reduction apply to our experiment? 
Please let us know if any additional details about our experiment are required.

Regards,
Dmitri.



From: bind-users  On Behalf Of Victoria Risk
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 6:08 PM
To: Doug Whitfield 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org; Ond≈ôej Sur√Ω 
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

Hi Doug,

I think Ondrej is referring to this post from a prior month: 
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2022-June/106350.html<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fpipermail%2Fbind-users%2F2022-June%2F106350.html=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7C76baac03ecbc487cb94708da73cfd124%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637949633668973748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=7bHcN%2FQ7y5Azzg0w48fpG46aORYtbOSv9XZFqPZAu9Q%3D=0>

….
For tips on how to measure memory usage you might want to look at 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/131303/how-can-i-measure-the-actual-memory-usage-of-an-application-or-process<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F131303%2Fhow-can-i-measure-the-actual-memory-usage-of-an-application-or-process=05%7C01%7Cdpavlov%40perforce.com%7C76baac03ecbc487cb94708da73cfd124%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637949633668973748%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C=PmGJoB2tZIhtn3VwEk5VO4gArx1yhqkTSii1OXJ41zo%3D=0>
 …..


Also note the comment about ignoring ’total’ memory.


Vicky


On Aug 1, 2022, at 10:32 AM, Ondřej Surý 
mailto:ond...@isc.org>> wrote:

On 1. 8. 2022, at 16:14, Doug Whitfield 
mailto:dwhitfi...@perforce.com>> wrote:

as monitored from "top" RES value

Please read the whole thread on measuring the real consumed memory.

The '“top” RES value' has little or no value at all.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org<mailto:ond...@isc.org>

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.


--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org<mailto:bind-users@lists.isc.org>
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.



This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments 
and notify us immediately.

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Victoria Risk]

Hi Doug,

I think Ondrej is referring to this post from a prior month: 
https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2022-June/106350.html

….
For tips on how to measure memory usage you might want to look at 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/131303/how-can-i-measure-the-actual-memory-usage-of-an-application-or-process
 

 …..

Also note the comment about ignoring ’total’ memory.

Vicky

> On Aug 1, 2022, at 10:32 AM, Ondřej Surý  wrote:
> 
>> On 1. 8. 2022, at 16:14, Doug Whitfield  wrote:
>> 
>> as monitored from "top" RES value
> 
> Please read the whole thread on measuring the real consumed memory.
> 
> The '“top” RES value' has little or no value at all.
> 
> Ondrej
> --
> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
> ond...@isc.org
> 
> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
> obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
> this list
> 
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
> 
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

> On 1. 8. 2022, at 16:14, Doug Whitfield  wrote:
> 
> as monitored from "top" RES value

Please read the whole thread on measuring the real consumed memory.

The '“top” RES value' has little or no value at all.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.


-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Doug Whitfield]

Hi ISC,

We have run an experiment with:

1. one zone
2. basic configuration
3. ~100 MIL of A(2/3 of all records) + CNAME(1/3 of all records) records in the 
zone file. Other types not tested.

RAM consumption (as monitored from "top" RES value) in RHEL 7.9 was 2 GB higher 
in 9.18.5 (with Jemalloc 5.3.0) vs 9.16.21 (w/o Jemalloc).


Here is the key question: Should the memory reduction apply to our experiment? 
Please let us know if any additional details about our experiment are required.

If not, could you please add additional details about the memory reduction 
statement and scenarios it applies to?

Best regards,
Doug Whitfield


From: bind-users  on behalf of Petr Špaček 

Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 03:16
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org 
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
On 26. 07. 22 0:14, Doug Whitfield wrote:
> I wonder if simply adding the words “in most cases” to the end of the
> sentence might make it more clear that the 10% increase in memory is not
> so much a bug as a different use case.

I'm eager to see reproducer for this +10 % increase but so far it was
not verified.

I did lots of testing and simply cannot reproduce it, so it might be not
surprising I consider it a bad idea to extend our articles with
information we cannot verify.

--
Petr Špaček
--
Visit 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-usersdata=05%7C01%7Cdwhitfield%40perforce.com%7C47e07cc8a81c42657d9b08da6edf1a47%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637944201764238712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Pt6%2F4K8qbj4C4eOwRXfMLBcoiu9guuAHFgDy0dotpqg%3Dreserved=0
 to unsubscribe from this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at 
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.isc.org%2Fcontact%2Fdata=05%7C01%7Cdwhitfield%40perforce.com%7C47e07cc8a81c42657d9b08da6edf1a47%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637944201764238712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Ovj4bqdtTyTcsY%2FecQI0nK108ANpaoS7lOSgLsrIOew%3Dreserved=0
 for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.isc.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fbind-usersdata=05%7C01%7Cdwhitfield%40perforce.com%7C47e07cc8a81c42657d9b08da6edf1a47%7C95b666d19a7549ab95a38969fbcdc08c%7C0%7C0%7C637944201764238712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Pt6%2F4K8qbj4C4eOwRXfMLBcoiu9guuAHFgDy0dotpqg%3Dreserved=0


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.


This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments 
and notify us immediately.

-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Petr Špaček]

On 26. 07. 22 0:14, Doug Whitfield wrote:
I wonder if simply adding the words “in most cases” to the end of the 
sentence might make it more clear that the 10% increase in memory is not 
so much a bug as a different use case.


I'm eager to see reproducer for this +10 % increase but so far it was 
not verified.


I did lots of testing and simply cannot reproduce it, so it might be not 
surprising I consider it a bad idea to extend our articles with 
information we cannot verify.


--
Petr Špaček
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

There’s no generic tool. The one that was mentioned in the article was tailored 
for that specific bug in jemalloc.

In any case, the article is only tangential to the topic here. It talks about a 
issue in the jemalloc that was triggered by a specific code in named.

Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 26. 7. 2022, at 0:14, Doug Whitfield  wrote:
> 
> I see there is a reproducer.c mentioned in 
> https://www.isc.org/blogs/jemalloc-glitch/. I do not see a link to the full 
> code. Is this the testing tool that the community prefers? Where can we find 
> this tool?
-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Doug Whitfield]

Hi Ondřej,

I see there is a reproducer.c mentioned in 
https://www.isc.org/blogs/jemalloc-glitch/. I do not see a link to the full 
code. Is this the testing tool that the community prefers? Where can we find 
this tool?

I wonder if a lot of this user confusion could be fixed by simply rewording the 
documentation at https://kb.isc.org/docs/bind-memory-consumption-explained . 
There is this piece: “There is a change in BIND 9.18.0, which is partly 
backported to 9.16.25, which reduces BIND's memory consumption down to levels 
similar to those with 9.11.“

I wonder if simply adding the words “in most cases” to the end of the sentence 
might make it more clear that the 10% increase in memory is not so much a bug 
as a different use case.

Best Regards,
Doug Whitfield

From: bind-users  on behalf of Ondřej Surý 

Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 at 08:54
To: Raman kumar 
Cc: ML BIND Users 
Subject: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
I can’t really parse your message. I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide a 
reproducer. And yet again you come and ask that we do the debugging for you.

The currency here that you need to pay to get help is sharing - sharing the 
information, sharing the experience. Don’t mistake free software for free 
buffet where you come and just take.

And don’t be mistaken - I was not helping you specifically, I was just 
disputing your claim that BIND 9.18 takes more memory than 9.16 because that 
claim didn’t match our own measurements.

Have a nice day,
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.


On 25. 7. 2022, at 15:11, Raman kumar  wrote:

Thanks Ondřej
We really appreciate your help in debugging this issue.

Observations that we have shared are with 32M data of 15 characters and we have 
configured jemalloc and bind using.
Downloaded the jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 and configure using below command
# ./configure --prefix=/usr
Downloaded bind 9.18.3 from ISC website
# ./configure --prefix=/opt/bind --sysconfdir=/etc/opt/bind --with-openssl=no 
--disable-doh

•   Bind compiled with openssl 1.0 and openssl 1.1 behavior was the same, 
in 9.18.3 memory usage was high wrt 9.16.21.
Can you please guide us about your configuration and compilation process after 
which you observed low memory usage?

If possible can you please share the named.conf files and the loading mechanism 
followed.

Regards,
Raman

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:00 PM Ondřej Surý 
mailto:ond...@isc.org>> wrote:
Hey,

I did a measurement with 1M small generated zones that we are
using internally for the performance testing and here are some numbers:

The measured values are USS/PSS/RSS using `smem -P named -k`

BIND 9.16 w/o jemalloc: 10.9G/10.9G/10.9G (default configuration)
BIND 9.16 with jemalloc: 10.1G/10.2G/10.2G [1]

BIND 9.18 w/o jemalloc: 10.7G/10.7G/10.7G (not recommended)
BIND 9.18 with jemalloc: 9.9G/9.9G/9.9G (default configuration)

BIND 9.19 w/o jemalloc: 10.5G/10.5G/10.6G
BIND 9.19 with jemalloc: 9.8G/9.8G/9.8G [2]

This is consistent with our other measurements that the memory
usage is slightly lower with 9.18 compared to 9.16.

As you hadn’t shared any other details, there’s not much we can
do here, so you are pretty much on your own. But I would say that
1GB extra of memory in the context of loading 1M zones is not
worth too much effort.

1. just preloading jemalloc saves some memory as compared to the default system 
allocator
2. our expectations are to go even lower during the 9.19/9.20 development 
cycle, but no promises yet

Cheers,
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org<mailto:ond...@isc.org>

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 11. 7. 2022, at 6:25, Ondřej Surý mailto:ond...@isc.org>> 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> yes, I did. And I see no problem here. The software changes between the 
> versions and roughly 10% increase doesn’t seem like something that should be 
> worrying or worth any deep investigation. You simply cannot expect “faster”, 
> “better”, “contains new features” and *“same”* together.
>
> Ondřej
> --
> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
>
> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
> obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>
>> On 11. 7. 2022, at 6:09, Raman kumar 
>> mailto:kumarraman@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> Did you get a chance to look into the data that I shared above? The 
>> tools(ps_mem, pmap ) that you recommended to compare the RAM consumption 
>> between 9.18.x and 9.16.x are also showing that memory consumption is more 
>> in 9.18.x compared to 9.16.x.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Raman
>>
>>
>>
&

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

;> >>> --
>> >>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
>> >>> 
>> >>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not 
>> >>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>> >>> 
>> >>>> On 23. 6. 2022, at 19:07, Raman kumar  wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Hello,
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Thanks for your reply!
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> I did the analysis of stats generated, top command output and statm 
>> >>>> file. Memory consumption(inUse) in 9.16 is matching in all places.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> In 9.18 memory consumption(inUse) is matching in statm file and top 
>> >>>> command output, but it is not matching with stats generated (please see 
>> >>>> images below for stats, top command output and statm of bind version 
>> >>>> 9.16 and 9.18).
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Can you please guide us to debug high memory uses in bind 9.18 based 
>> >>>> upon the data shared below?
>> >>>> Also need your inputs why stats are not matching with memory(InUse) in 
>> >>>> bind version 9.18?
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Regards,
>> >>>> Raman
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ondřej Surý  wrote:
>> >>>> And what did you find looking at the new data? What are the 
>> >>>> differences? And by how much?
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> You should not expect other people doing the analysis for yourself.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Ondrej
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not 
>> >>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>> On 22. 6. 2022, at 6:30, Raman kumar  wrote:
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Hello,
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> As suggested, please find the attached artifacts which includes stats 
>> >>>>> by configuring statistics channel in named.conf, content at 
>> >>>>> /proc//statm, top command output for both 9.16.21 and 9.18.3.
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>> Raman
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:55 PM Ondřej Surý  wrote:
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> we cannot really help you if you ignore everything that was said to 
>> >>>>> you regarding the memory measurements.
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> Ondrej.
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
>> >>>>> ond...@isc.org
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do 
>> >>>>> not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>>> > On 16. 6. 2022, at 9:02, Raman kumar  
>> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > Hello All,
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory consumption 
>> >>>>> > is high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And 
>> >>>>> > on 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same 
>> >>>>> > data.
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used?
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > Regards,
>> >>>>> > Raman
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > 
>> >>>>> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM 

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Gregory Sloop]

gt;>> Ondřej
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
>>>>> 
>>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not 
>>>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 23. 6. 2022, at 19:07, Raman kumar  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for your reply!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I did the analysis of stats generated, top command output and statm 
>>>>>> file. Memory consumption(inUse) in 9.16 is matching in all places.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In 9.18 memory consumption(inUse) is matching in statm file and top 
>>>>>> command output, but it is not matching with stats generated (please see 
>>>>>> images below for stats, top command output and statm of bind version 
>>>>>> 9.16 and 9.18).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can you please guide us to debug high memory uses in bind 9.18 based 
>>>>>> upon the data shared below?
>>>>>> Also need your inputs why stats are not matching with memory(InUse) in 
>>>>>> bind version 9.18?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Raman
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ondřej Surý  wrote:
>>>>>> And what did you find looking at the new data? What are the differences? 
>>>>>> And by how much?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You should not expect other people doing the analysis for yourself.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ondrej
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not 
>>>>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 22. 6. 2022, at 6:30, Raman kumar  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As suggested, please find the attached artifacts which includes stats 
>>>>>>> by configuring statistics channel in named.conf, content at 
>>>>>>> /proc//statm, top command output for both 9.16.21 and 9.18.3.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Raman
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:55 PM Ondřej Surý  wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> we cannot really help you if you ignore everything that was said to you 
>>>>>>> regarding the memory measurements.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ondrej.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
>>>>>>> ond...@isc.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not 
>>>>>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > On 16. 6. 2022, at 9:02, Raman kumar  wrote:
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > Hello All,
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory consumption 
>>>>>>> > is high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And 
>>>>>>> > on 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same data.
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used?
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>>>> > Raman
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček  wrote:
>>>>>>> > On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>>>>>> > > Hi Klarstei

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Raman kumar]

gt;>>>> 
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As suggested, please find the attached artifacts which includes
> stats by configuring statistics channel in named.conf, content at
> /proc//statm, top command output for both 9.16.21 and 9.18.3.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Raman
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:55 PM Ondřej Surý  wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> we cannot really help you if you ignore everything that was said to
> you regarding the memory measurements.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ondrej.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
> >>>>> ond...@isc.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do
> not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > On 16. 6. 2022, at 9:02, Raman kumar 
> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Hello All,
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory
> consumption is high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc.
> And on 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same data.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory
> used?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Regards,
> >>>>> > Raman
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček 
> wrote:
> >>>>> > On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> >>>>> > > Hi Klarstein,
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough
> for initial assessment (json please).
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Here are commands you asked for:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has
> this:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Configuration summary:
> >>>>> >
> ---
> >>>>> > Optional features enabled:
> >>>>> >  Memory allocator: jemalloc
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > statistics-channels {
> >>>>> > inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080;
> >>>>> > };
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL:
> >>>>> > http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc//statm content at the same
> time
> >>>>> > as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux).
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I hope it helps.
> >>>>> > Petr Špaček
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > Ondrej
> >>>>> > > --
> >>>>> > > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please
> do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > >> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users <
> bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote:
> >>>>> > >>
> >>>>> > >> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are
> interested? I want to collect the sta

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

tion is 
>>>>> > high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And on 
>>>>> > 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same data.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used?
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Regards,
>>>>> > Raman
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček  wrote:
>>>>> > On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>>>> > > Hi Klarstein,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough for 
>>>>> > > initial assessment (json please).
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Here are commands you asked for:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has this:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Configuration summary:
>>>>> > ---
>>>>> > Optional features enabled:
>>>>> >  Memory allocator: jemalloc
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > statistics-channels {
>>>>> >     inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080;
>>>>> > };
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL:
>>>>> > http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc//statm content at the same time
>>>>> > as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux).
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > I hope it helps.
>>>>> > Petr Špaček
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Ondrej
>>>>> > > --
>>>>> > > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do 
>>>>> > > not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users 
>>>>> > >>  wrote:
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are 
>>>>> > >> interested? I want to collect the statistics for 9.16 before 
>>>>> > >> updating to 9.18.
>>>>> > >> Thanks
>>>>> > >> Klaus
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>>>> > >>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von 
>>>>> > >>> Petr
>>>>> > >>> Špacek
>>>>> > >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20
>>>>> > >>> An: bind-users@lists.isc.org
>>>>> > >>> Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>> I would be very interested in hearing more!
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory 
>>>>> > >>> consumption
>>>>> > >>> than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And 
>>>>> > >>> the
>>>>> > >>> differences are not small, for some configurations it can be even 
>>>>> > >>> 2x or
>>>>> > >>> 3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18.
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose 
>>>>

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

And what did you find looking at the new data? What are the differences? And by how much?You should not expect other people doing the analysis for yourself.Ondrej--Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.On 22. 6. 2022, at 6:30, Raman kumar  wrote:Hello,As suggested, please find the attached artifacts which includes stats by configuring statistics channel in named.conf, content at /proc//statm, top command output for both 9.16.21 and 9.18.3.Regards,RamanOn Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:55 PM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote:Hi,

we cannot really help you if you ignore everything that was said to you regarding the memory measurements.

Ondrej.
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 16. 6. 2022, at 9:02, Raman kumar <kumarraman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory consumption is high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.
> 
> On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And on 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same data.
> 
> Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?
> 
> One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used?
> 
> Regards,
> Raman
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček <pspa...@isc.org> wrote:
> On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > Hi Klarstein,
> >
> > Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough for initial assessment (json please).
> >
> > For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.
> 
> Here are commands you asked for:
> 
> 1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has this:
> 
> Configuration summary:
> ---
> Optional features enabled:
>      Memory allocator: jemalloc
> 
> 
> 2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this:
> 
> statistics-channels {
>         inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080;
> };
> 
> 
> 3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL:
> http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1
> 
> Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part.
> 
> 4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc//statm content at the same time
> as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux).
> 
> I hope it helps.
> Petr Špaček
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Ondrej
> > --
> > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
> >
> > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> >
> >> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users <bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are interested? I want to collect the statistics for 9.16 before updating to 9.18.
> >> Thanks
> >> Klaus
> >>
> >>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >>> Von: bind-users <bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org> Im Auftrag von Petr
> >>> Špacek
> >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20
> >>> An: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> >>> Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> >>>
> >>> I would be very interested in hearing more!
> >>>
> >>> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory consumption
> >>> than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And the
> >>> differences are not small, for some configurations it can be even 2x or
> >>> 3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18.
> >>>
> >>> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose it.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>> Petr Špaček
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
> >>>> I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) and hence
> >>> wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details.
> >>>>
> >>>> regards
> >>>> Klaus
> >>>>
> >>>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >>>>> Von: bind-users <bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org> Im Auftrag von
> >>> Ondrej
> >>>>> Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37
> >>>>> An: Raman kumar <kumarraman@gmail.com>
> >>>>> Cc: bind-us

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Raman kumar]

Hello,

As suggested, please find the attached artifacts which includes stats by
configuring statistics channel in named.conf, content at /proc//statm,
top command output for both 9.16.21 and 9.18.3.

Regards,
Raman

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:55 PM Ondřej Surý  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> we cannot really help you if you ignore everything that was said to you
> regarding the memory measurements.
>
> Ondrej.
> --
> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
> ond...@isc.org
>
> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not
> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>
> > On 16. 6. 2022, at 9:02, Raman kumar  wrote:
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory consumption is
> high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.
> >
> > On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And on
> 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same data.
> >
> > Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?
> >
> > One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Raman
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček  wrote:
> > On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > > Hi Klarstein,
> > >
> > > Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough for
> initial assessment (json please).
> > >
> > > For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.
> >
> > Here are commands you asked for:
> >
> > 1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has this:
> >
> > Configuration summary:
> >
> ---
> > Optional features enabled:
> >  Memory allocator: jemalloc
> >
> >
> > 2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this:
> >
> > statistics-channels {
> > inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080;
> > };
> >
> >
> > 3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL:
> > http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1
> >
> > Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part.
> >
> > 4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc//statm content at the same time
> > as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux).
> >
> > I hope it helps.
> > Petr Špaček
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ondrej
> > > --
> > > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
> > >
> > > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do
> not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> > >
> > >> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users <
> bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are
> interested? I want to collect the statistics for 9.16 before updating to
> 9.18.
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Klaus
> > >>
> > >>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > >>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von
> Petr
> > >>> Špacek
> > >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20
> > >>> An: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> > >>> Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> > >>>
> > >>> I would be very interested in hearing more!
> > >>>
> > >>> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory
> consumption
> > >>> than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And the
> > >>> differences are not small, for some configurations it can be even 2x
> or
> > >>> 3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose
> it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you!
> > >>> Petr Špaček
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
> > >>>> I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) and
> hence
> > >>> wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards
> > >>>> Klaus
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > >>>>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von
> > >>> Ondrej
> > >>>>> Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37
> > >>>>>

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

Hi,

we cannot really help you if you ignore everything that was said to you 
regarding the memory measurements.

Ondrej.
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 16. 6. 2022, at 9:02, Raman kumar  wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory consumption is high 
> in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.
> 
> On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And on 
> 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same data.
> 
> Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?
> 
> One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used?
> 
> Regards,
> Raman
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček  wrote:
> On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > Hi Klarstein,
> >
> > Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough for 
> > initial assessment (json please).
> >
> > For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.
> 
> Here are commands you asked for:
> 
> 1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has this:
> 
> Configuration summary:
> ---
> Optional features enabled:
>  Memory allocator: jemalloc
> 
> 
> 2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this:
> 
> statistics-channels {
> inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080;
> };
> 
> 
> 3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL:
> http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1
> 
> Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part.
> 
> 4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc//statm content at the same time
> as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux).
> 
> I hope it helps.
> Petr Špaček
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Ondrej
> > --
> > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
> >
> > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not 
> > feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> >
> >> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users 
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are interested? I 
> >> want to collect the statistics for 9.16 before updating to 9.18.
> >> Thanks
> >> Klaus
> >>
> >>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von Petr
> >>> Špacek
> >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20
> >>> An: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> >>> Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> >>>
> >>> I would be very interested in hearing more!
> >>>
> >>> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory consumption
> >>> than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And the
> >>> differences are not small, for some configurations it can be even 2x or
> >>> 3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18.
> >>>
> >>> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose it.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>> Petr Špaček
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
> >>>> I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) and hence
> >>> wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details.
> >>>>
> >>>> regards
> >>>> Klaus
> >>>>
> >>>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >>>>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von
> >>> Ondrej
> >>>>> Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37
> >>>>> An: Raman kumar 
> >>>>> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> >>>>> Betreff: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from
> >>> stats
> >>>>> channel from named?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9 compiled
> >>>>> (or packaged)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The more details, the better
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ondrej
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Raman kumar]

Hello All,

We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory consumption is
high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16.

On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And on
9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same data.

Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed?

One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used?

Regards,
Raman


On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček  wrote:

> On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> > Hi Klarstein,
> >
> > Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough for
> initial assessment (json please).
> >
> > For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.
>
> Here are commands you asked for:
>
> 1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has this:
>
> Configuration summary:
>
> ---
> Optional features enabled:
>  Memory allocator: jemalloc
>
>
> 2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this:
>
> statistics-channels {
> inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080;
> };
>
>
> 3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL:
> http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1
>
> Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part.
>
> 4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc//statm content at the same time
> as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux).
>
> I hope it helps.
> Petr Špaček
>
>
>
> >
> > Ondrej
> > --
> > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
> >
> > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not
> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> >
> >> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users <
> bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are interested?
> I want to collect the statistics for 9.16 before updating to 9.18.
> >> Thanks
> >> Klaus
> >>
> >>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von Petr
> >>> Špacek
> >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20
> >>> An: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> >>> Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> >>>
> >>> I would be very interested in hearing more!
> >>>
> >>> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory consumption
> >>> than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And the
> >>> differences are not small, for some configurations it can be even 2x or
> >>> 3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18.
> >>>
> >>> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose it.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>> Petr Špaček
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
> >>>> I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) and
> hence
> >>> wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details.
> >>>>
> >>>> regards
> >>>> Klaus
> >>>>
> >>>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >>>>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von
> >>> Ondrej
> >>>>> Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37
> >>>>> An: Raman kumar 
> >>>>> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> >>>>> Betreff: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from
> >>> stats
> >>>>> channel from named?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9
> compiled
> >>>>> (or packaged)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The more details, the better
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ondrej
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
> >>>>> ond...@isc.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do
> >>> not
> >>>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 18. 5. 2022, at 8:32, Raman kumar 
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Petr Špaček]

On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote:

Hi Klarstein,

Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough for initial 
assessment (json please).

For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.


Here are commands you asked for:

1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has this:

Configuration summary:
---
Optional features enabled:
Memory allocator: jemalloc


2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this:

statistics-channels {
inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080;
};


3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL:
http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1

Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part.

4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc//statm content at the same time 
as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux).


I hope it helps.
Petr Špaček





Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.


On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users 
 wrote:

Can you please provide some commands whose output you are interested? I want 
to collect the statistics for 9.16 before updating to 9.18.
Thanks
Klaus


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von Petr
Špacek
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20
An: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

I would be very interested in hearing more!

In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory consumption
than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And the
differences are not small, for some configurations it can be even 2x or
3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18.

If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose it.

Thank you!
Petr Špaček



On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) and hence

wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details.


regards
Klaus


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von

Ondrej

Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37
An: Raman kumar 
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Betreff: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you.

What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from

stats

channel from named?

What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9 compiled
(or packaged)?

The more details, the better

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do

not

feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.


On 18. 5. 2022, at 8:32, Raman kumar 

wrote:


Hello Team,

While upgrading from BIND 9.16.10 to 9.18.2, we have observed high

memory consumption.


On version 9.16.2, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB. And on 9.18.2, RAM

consumption is 4.5 GB. Due to this an increase of approximately 20 %
memory is observed.


Is this the expected behaviour or any tuning is needed?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Raman
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe

from

this list


ISC funds the development of this software with paid support

subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more
information.



bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users





--
Petr Špaček
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this
list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users



--
Petr Špaček
--
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

Hi Klarstein,

Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough for initial 
assessment (json please).

For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users 
>  wrote:
> 
> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are interested? I want 
> to collect the statistics for 9.16 before updating to 9.18.
> Thanks
> Klaus
> 
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von Petr
>> Špacek
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20
>> An: bind-users@lists.isc.org
>> Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
>> 
>> I would be very interested in hearing more!
>> 
>> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory consumption
>> than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And the
>> differences are not small, for some configurations it can be even 2x or
>> 3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18.
>> 
>> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose it.
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> Petr Špaček
>> 
>> 
>>> On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
>>> I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) and hence
>> wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details.
>>> 
>>> regards
>>> Klaus
>>> 
>>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von
>> Ondrej
>>>> Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37
>>>> An: Raman kumar 
>>>> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
>>>> 
>>>> You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you.
>>>> 
>>>> What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from
>> stats
>>>> channel from named?
>>>> 
>>>> What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9 compiled
>>>> (or packaged)?
>>>> 
>>>> The more details, the better
>>>> 
>>>> Ondrej
>>>> --
>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
>>>> ond...@isc.org
>>>> 
>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do
>> not
>>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>>>> 
>>>>> On 18. 5. 2022, at 8:32, Raman kumar 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Team,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While upgrading from BIND 9.16.10 to 9.18.2, we have observed high
>>>> memory consumption.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On version 9.16.2, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB. And on 9.18.2, RAM
>>>> consumption is 4.5 GB. Due to this an increase of approximately 20 %
>>>> memory is observed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is this the expected behaviour or any tuning is needed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Raman
>>>>> --
>>>>> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
>> from
>>>> this list
>>>>> 
>>>>> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support
>>>> subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more
>>>> information.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> bind-users mailing list
>>>>> bind-users@lists.isc.org
>>>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Petr Špaček
>> --
>> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
>> this
>> list
>> 
>> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
>> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
>> 
>> 
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-users@lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
> -- 
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
> this list
> 
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
> 
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

Also please note that proper measurement of memory consumption is needed. 
There’s some good (semi-accurate) stuff at SO and it needs to be correlated 
with the statschannel output from named. Running “free” doesn’t measure memory 
consumption by any program.

Ondřej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 18. 5. 2022, at 18:19, Petr Špaček  wrote:
> 
> I would be very interested in hearing more!
> 
> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory consumption than 
> 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. And the differences 
> are not small, for some configurations it can be even 2x or 3x more on 9.16 
> than it is on 9.18.
> 
> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can diagnose it.
> 
> Thank you!
> Petr Špaček
> 
> 
>> On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote:
>> I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) and hence 
>> wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details.
>> regards
>> Klaus
>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>> Von: bind-users  Im Auftrag von Ondrej
>>> Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37
>>> An: Raman kumar 
>>> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
>>> Betreff: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2
>>> 
>>> You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you.
>>> 
>>> What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from stats
>>> channel from named?
>>> 
>>> What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9 compiled
>>> (or packaged)?
>>> 
>>> The more details, the better
>>> 
>>> Ondrej
>>> --
>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
>>> ond...@isc.org
>>> 
>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not
>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>>> 
>>>> On 18. 5. 2022, at 8:32, Raman kumar 
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Team,
>>>> 
>>>> While upgrading from BIND 9.16.10 to 9.18.2, we have observed high
>>> memory consumption.
>>>> 
>>>> On version 9.16.2, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB. And on 9.18.2, RAM
>>> consumption is 4.5 GB. Due to this an increase of approximately 20 %
>>> memory is observed.
>>>> 
>>>> Is this the expected behaviour or any tuning is needed?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Raman
>>>> --
>>>> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from
>>> this list
>>>> 
>>>> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support
>>> subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more
>>> information.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> bind-users mailing list
>>>> bind-users@lists.isc.org
>>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
> 
> 
> -- 
> Petr Špaček
> -- 
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
> this list
> 
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
> 
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Raman kumar]

Hello,

Please find the details below.

Free command is used to check RAM available/used.  space used is 50GB on
RHEL 7.9 in bind version 9.18.2 whereas in bind version 9.16.10 RAM
space used is 44 GB with the same amount of data and configuration.

free -g
  totalusedfree  shared  buff/cache
  available
Mem: 50  50   0   0   0
  0
Swap: 9   0   9


starting BIND 9.18.2 (Stable Release) 
named[31521]: running on Linux x86_64 3.10.0-1160.59.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP
named[31521]: built with  '--prefix=/opt/bind' '--sysconfdir=/etc/opt/bind'
'--with-openssl=no' '--disable-doh' 'PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/usr/lib/pkgconfig'
running as: named -n 4 -c /etc/opt/bind/named.conf.0
compiled by GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)
compiled with OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 1.0.2k-fips  26 Jan 2017
linked to OpenSSL version: OpenSSL 1.0.2k-fips  26 Jan 2017
compiled with libxml2 version: 2.9.1
linked to libxml2 version: 20901
compiled with zlib version: 1.2.7
linked to zlib version: 1.2.7

Regards,
Raman

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:06 PM Ondřej Surý  wrote:

> You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you.
>
> What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from stats
> channel from named?
>
> What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9 compiled
> (or packaged)?
>
> The more details, the better
>
> Ondrej
> --
> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
> ond...@isc.org
>
> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not
> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>
> > On 18. 5. 2022, at 8:32, Raman kumar  wrote:
> >
> > Hello Team,
> >
> > While upgrading from BIND 9.16.10 to 9.18.2, we have observed high
> memory consumption.
> >
> > On version 9.16.2, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB. And on 9.18.2, RAM
> consumption is 4.5 GB. Due to this an increase of approximately 20 % memory
> is observed.
> >
> > Is this the expected behaviour or any tuning is needed?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Raman
> > --
> > Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
> from this list
> >
> > ISC funds the development of this software with paid support
> subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more
> information.
> >
> >
> > bind-users mailing list
> > bind-users@lists.isc.org
> > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>
>
-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you.

What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from stats channel 
from named?

What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9 compiled (or 
packaged)?

The more details, the better

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel 
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 18. 5. 2022, at 8:32, Raman kumar  wrote:
> 
> Hello Team,
> 
> While upgrading from BIND 9.16.10 to 9.18.2, we have observed high memory 
> consumption.
> 
> On version 9.16.2, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB. And on 9.18.2, RAM consumption 
> is 4.5 GB. Due to this an increase of approximately 20 % memory is observed.
> 
> Is this the expected behaviour or any tuning is needed?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> Raman
> --
> Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
> this list
> 
> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
> Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
> 
> 
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- 
Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from 
this list

ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. 
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.


bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users