Bind 9.1.3 stop resolving but is still running.

[Brad Knowles]

At 1:45 AM -0400 9/7/01, Jason Larke wrote:

>  My bad; I should have specified "quick cheap fixes." :)

	I am reminded of a quote I heard from somewhere else:

		Good, quick, cheap.  Pick two.

	;-)

>  Cache00 is a Netra 1125 with 2 300mhz UltraSparcII CPUs and 2
>  gigs of RAM. I figured BIND 9's multithreading might make it
>  faster than BIND 8, so I ran some quick tests.

	In that case, if you built with threading enabled (a feature that 
is now disabled by default, due to all the problems with the 
threading libraries on most OSes), and you built using the vendor 
compilers (not gcc, which is known for having problems generating 
64-bit code for Solaris, and is generally unsupported for Solaris 
anyway), then you *should* have seen that BIND 9.1.x performs 
reasonably closely to the best you will see from BIND 8, and that 
BIND 9.2.x should hopefully perform that much better.

	Dig through the archives and take a look at the previous reports 
on this mailing list/newsgroup for similar testing performed by Matt 
Simerson, and then compare his latest methodology to your own, and 
see if there is anything missing or needing improvement.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>

H4sICIFgXzsCA2RtYS1zaWcAPVHLbsMwDDvXX0H0kkvbfxiwVw8FCmzAzqqj1F4dy7CdBfn7
Kc6wmyGRFEnvvxiWQoCvqI7RSWTcfGXQNqCUAnfIU+AT8OZ/GCNjRVlH0bKpguJkxiITZqes
MxwpSucyDJzXxQEUe/ihgXqJXUXwD9ajB6NHonLmNrUSK9nacHQnH097szO74xFXqtlbT3il
wMsBz5cnfCR5cEmci0Rj9u/jqBbPeES1I4PeFBXPUIT1XDSOuutFXylzrQvGyboWstCoQZyP
dxX4dLx0eauFe1x9puhoi0Ao1omEJo+BZ6XLVNaVpWiKekxN0VK2VMpmAy+Bk7ZV4SO+p1L/
uErNRS/qH2iFU+iNOtbcmVt9N16lfF7tLv9FXNj8AiyNcOi1AQAA