bind-9.10.0-P2 memory leak?

Thomas Schulz schulz at
Fri Sep 12 15:47:07 UTC 2014

> Mike Hoskins wrote:
> Do you guys have max-cache-size set?  I didn't see it in the borderworlds
> named.conf.  I've seen similar growth problems when testing 9.x before
> setting that (experiment at the time just to see what would happen, and
> confirmed this behavior).  Set sensible resource limits based on available
> resources.

I am going to see what happens with max-cache-size set, but I am convinced
that there is a bug in bind. My named has been running for 7.5 weeks now
and has been steadily growing in size except for a 1.5 week pause after I
did an rndc flush. The process size started out at 36 MB and is now up to
584 MB. But when I do an rndc dumpdb -cache I get a file that is only 5 MB
in size. Given the automatic cache cleaning, named should stabilize in
size in less than 7.5 weeks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinícius Ferrão <ferrao at>
> Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 10:17 AM
> To: Thomas Schulz <schulz at>
> Cc: "bind-users at" <bind-users at>
> Subject: Re: bind-9.10.0-P2 memory leak?
>>I'm having the exactly same issue. Take a look at my post @ServerFault:
>>Sent from my iPhone
>>On 09/09/2014, at 11:15, "Thomas Schulz" <schulz at> wrote:
>>>> Hello
>>>> I recently upgraded my authoritative nameservers to bind-9.10.0-P2 and
>>>> after a while one of them ended up using all its swap and the named
>>>> process got killed. The other servers are seeing similar behaviour,
>>>> I restarted named on all of them to postpone further crashes.
>>>> I am using rate-limiting as well DLZ with PostgreSQL. The server has
>>>> views. The operating system is FreeBSD 8.4.
>>>> My configuration:
>>>> Log of the memory usage:
>>>> As you can see, in less than a week, named has grown more than 900MB
>>>> size.
>>>> Is anyone else experiencing something similar?
>>>> If I need to provide more information, I will be happy to do so.
>>>> -- 
>>>> Christian Laursen
>>> What version did you upgrade from? I am seeing bind 9.9.5 and 9.9.6
>>> grow without any evidence that it will ever stop. See my mail to this
>>> list with the subject "Re: Process size versus cache size." Mine is
>>> growing slower than yours, but it is now up to 548 MB.
>>> Tom Schulz
>>> Applied Dynamics Intl.
>>> schulz at

Tom Schulz
Applied Dynamics Intl.
schulz at

More information about the bind-users mailing list