is this normal?

John Wobus jw354 at
Mon Mar 28 22:40:52 UTC 2005

Has anyone else seen this?  We are not running 9.3.1 yet, but I did 
notice memory usage go up quite a bit when going from 8.X and 9.3.0, 
and wouldn't mind at all if it went back down a bit.  I looked through 
the 9.3.1 changes document for anything that could be memory-related, 
and saw this possibly-relevant item:

1740.	[bug]		Replace rbt's hash algorithm as it performed badly
			with certain zones. [RT #12729]

There were a few other entries about hashing.  None said anything 
specific about memory usage.

John Wobus
Cornell University CIT

On Mar 26, 2005, at 4:11 PM, Mipam wrote:

> Hi,
> I was running bind 9.3.0 on a mail system.
> Recently i upgraded to bind 9.3.1 on that system.
> Normally named would grow to 20 meg in size within some hours.
> This is normal, this size seemed to be stable, no problems.
> However, after the upgrade to 9.3.1 the size only becomes about 11 
> megs.
> What happend to the caching part of named? Is this normal?
> I don't see any crazy things happening, but still it's a big difference
> running 9.3.0 and 9.3.1 looking purely at the size of bind after some
> days.
> Bye,
> Mipam.

More information about the bind-users mailing list