dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
ivan jr sy
ivan_jr at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 23 03:28:34 UTC 2008
I have confirmed that the ARCH=x86_64 trick resolved the issues with my configuration. I have tested this with an authoritative and recursive dns/bind95 port with modified Makefile.
I have not fully tested the acl.c and iptable.c since the patch suit my need.
--- On Tue, 12/23/08, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
> From: Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us>
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
> To: "bind-users at isc.org" <bind-users at isc.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 1:15 PM
> JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
> > At Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:35:32 -0500,
> > Vinny Abello <vinny at tellurian.com> wrote:
> >> For what it's worth, I just want to
> contribute that I can
> >> confirm this behavior on my systems as well. On
> BIND 9.5.0-P2,
> > From an off-list discussion, I found there was indeed
> memory leak in
> > the code of 9.5.0-P2 (so I was wrong in suspecting it
> might be the
> > FreeBSD thread library).
> > Can you try the patched copied below to see whether it
> solves the
> > problem?
> I have been following this issue, but I haven't seen
> any conclusive
> statements that any of the proposed solutions are effective
> and I
> don't want to make a change to the port without knowing
> for sure that
> it's the right one (and unfortunately I don't have
> an amd64 system to
> do testing on).
> So, can someone please state affirmatively if the proposed
> patch to
> the port (ARCH= x86_64) results in the right
> stuff in
> config.log, AND results in a named that doesn't
> experience the leaks?
> And can someone please state affirmatively that the patches
> to acl.c
> and iptable.c do the right thing, with or without the patch
> to the port?
> This .signature sanitized for your protection
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
More information about the bind-users