is this normal?
jw354 at cornell.edu
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.
Cornell University CIT
On Mar 26, 2005, at 4:11 PM, Mipam wrote:
> 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
> 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
More information about the bind-users