Cached negative responses

[Chris Thompson]

On Dec 20 2018, Marc Richter wrote:

> When checking the BIND XML statistics I see the following in the "Cache DB
> RRsets" section, which I think
> could be the reason for the high memory usage:
>
> !AAAA   18446744073709551559
> !A6     18446744073709551607
>
> Is this an overflow on the counter for these negative responses in Cache, or
> could there really be that many objects in the cache ?

Assuming these were output as uint64_t but then reinterpreting them as
int64_t, they are very *small* negative numbers, -57 and -9 respectively.
I suspect something other than overflow is responsible.

-- 
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 at cam.ac.uk