bind-9.10.0-P2 memory leak?
lconrad at go2france.com
lconrad at go2france.com
Mon Oct 13 13:11:08 UTC 2014
On Monday 13/10/2014 at 1:32 pm, schulz at adi.com (Thomas Schulz) wrote:
>>>> Heh thanks, yeah...initially I was erring on the side of caution and
>>>> 9.9.x because it's served us well (~20k recursive clients without any
>>>> significant problems). Meanwhile we've been keeping a close eye on
>>>> community comments, and to be honest opinions wax and wane. Just as I
>>>> think it's stabilized, someone else complains. I suppose sticking to
>>>> 9.9.x a bit longer is wise.
>>>> That said, based on the 9.10.1 fixes, we will run it through our own
>>>> tests for comparison. Upgrades are automated and easy, but I'd
>>>> like to go live with the latest version unless there is a strong
>>>> reason otherwise.
>>> FYI, 9.9 is the current Extended Support Version (ESV). If you're
>>> looking for a version of BIND with a long period of maintenance, there
>>> will be ongoing 9.9.x, 9.9.x+1 etc. releases and interim patches if
>> I mentioned this earlier, but I have been seeing the very large
>> in process size with Bind 9.9.5-P1 and 9.9.6b1. I have just installed
>> 9.10.1rc2 on one of our secondary name servers. In time I will be able
>> to see if 9.10.1rc2 shows a bigger increase in process size than
>> did. I have restarted 9.9.6b1 with max-cache-size 30M on our primary
>> server. Both experiments will take some time before I can tell what
>> is happening.
> For those seeing this problem on bind 9.10.1, did you upgrade from
> or from an earlier version of bind 9.9.*? As mentioned above, I am
> this problem on 9.9.6. I do not find bind 9.10.1 growing any faster
> 9.9.6 does.
> I restarted bind 9.9.6 with a max-cache-size of 30M. We have 3 views.
> The inital process size was 36 MB. The process grew to 184 MB. It grew
> to 596 MB without the max-cache-size being set and was still growing
> when I restarted it. BUT when I now do an rndc dumpdb -cache, the
> named_dump.db file contains only the line
> ; Dump complete
> and nothing else.
> So, if you put any limit on the cache size, you will end up with an
> cache. I do believe that there is a bug that needs to be fixed.
With Freebsd 10.0, I tried the 9.10 leak work around by with
max-cache-size, and it didn't stop the named memory foot print from
growing to 2+ GB.
I need 9.10 for the its white listing of RPZ hits.
I'm building a new Freebsd 9.3 VM and bind 9.10. (vmtools doesn't
support fbsd 10)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bind-users