bind 9.6.2 with threads hangs

2010-03-19 Thread Fabien Seisen
Hi, We have several recursive cache bind servers and experiencing weird things when named is compiled with-threads: In 4 steps: 1) everything goes ok 2) for ~1h named began to answer slower (0,5ms to 100ms) and with symptoms: - load increase on the server (from 0,3 to 4) - number of

Re: bind 9.6.2 with threads hangs

2010-03-22 Thread Fabien Seisen
2010/3/19 Chris Thompson On Mar 19 2010, David Ford wrote: BIND has long had issues with threading since it started supporting threaded operation. I recommend you simply recompile without thread support. I retry compiling with thread support about twice a year and as of

Re: bind 9.6.2 with threads hangs

2010-03-22 Thread Fabien Seisen
2010/3/22 Cathy Almond Fabien Seisen wrote: yes, max-cache-size 512M but named process takes ~900MB The extra memory is for keeping track of recursive clients (i.e. in-progress client queries). ok This doesn't sound like a hugely loaded server, exact, on my own test

bind 9.6.2 / solaris 10 intel / gcc 4 / compilation warning

2010-03-23 Thread Fabien Seisen
Hi, when compiling bind, i saw some warnings. my build box: - Solaris 10 U8 i386 - gcc (GCC) 4.3.4 (from ./configure --without-openssl --prefix=/opt/bind-9.6.2 --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var --disable-ipv6 --enable-threads gcc -I/opt/compil/bind-9.6.2 -I./include

Re: Bind hang out when named reach to 5-600 Mb

2010-07-12 Thread Fabien Seisen
2010/7/8 khanh rua Hi, I install bind as a cache server on Solaris 10, Sun Sparc T5140. It has problem, bind always hang out when named reach to 5-600 Mb ('prstat' check). I have several servers and all have this problem even when i install bind in zone or try

Re: How does BIND 9 scale with multithreading?

2010-09-29 Thread Fabien Seisen
2010/9/29 Eivind Olsen Does anyone know if there are any benchmarks out in the public, which could give some insight into how well BIND 9 scales with multithreading? I've tried looking on this list, and googling, but haven't found anything yet. To be a bit more specific -