<html>
<head>
<style>
.sw_message P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}
.sw_message {FONT-SIZE: 12pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;background:white;}
.sw_message blockquote{margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;border-left:2px solid #144fae;color: #144fae;}
.sw_message blockquote blockquote{border-left:2px solid #006312;color: #006312;}
.sw_message blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-left:2px solid #8e5656;color: #8e5656;}
.sw_message blockquote blockquote blockquote blockquote{border-left:2px solid #888;color: #888;}
</style>
</head>
<body class="sw_message">
<div> </div><div> </div><div id="editor_signature"></div><div>On Monday 13/10/2014 at 1:32 pm, schulz@adi.com (Thomas Schulz) wrote: </div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> ...<br><blockquote type="cite"> Heh thanks, yeah...initially I was erring on the side of caution and using<br> 9.9.x because it's served us well (~20k recursive clients without any<br> significant problems). Meanwhile we've been keeping a close eye on<br> community comments, and to be honest opinions wax and wane. Just as I<br> think it's stabilized, someone else complains. I suppose sticking to<br> 9.9.x a bit longer is wise.<br> <br> That said, based on the 9.10.1 fixes, we will run it through our own perf<br> tests for comparison. Upgrades are automated and easy, but I'd obviously<br> like to go live with the latest version unless there is a strong technical<br> reason otherwise.<br></blockquote> <br> FYI, 9.9 is the current Extended Support Version (ESV). If you're<br> looking for a version of BIND with a long period of maintenance, there<br> will be ongoing 9.9.x, 9.9.x+1 etc. releases and interim patches if needed.<br> <br> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/">http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/</a><br></blockquote><br> I mentioned this earlier, but I have been seeing the very large increases<br> in process size with Bind 9.9.5-P1 and 9.9.6b1. I have just installed<br> 9.10.1rc2 on one of our secondary name servers. In time I will be able<br> to see if 9.10.1rc2 shows a bigger increase in process size than 9.9.5-P1<br> did. I have restarted 9.9.6b1 with max-cache-size 30M on our primary<br> server. Both experiments will take some time before I can tell what<br> is happening.<br></blockquote><br>For those seeing this problem on bind 9.10.1, did you upgrade from 9.9.6<br>or from an earlier version of bind 9.9.*? As mentioned above, I am seeing<br>this problem on 9.9.6. I do not find bind 9.10.1 growing any faster than<br>9.9.6 does.<br><br>I restarted bind 9.9.6 with a max-cache-size of 30M. We have 3 views.<br>The inital process size was 36 MB. The process grew to 184 MB. It grew<br>to 596 MB without the max-cache-size being set and was still growing<br>when I restarted it. BUT when I now do an rndc dumpdb -cache, the<br>named_dump.db file contains only the line<br><br>; Dump complete<br><br>and nothing else.<br><br>So, if you put any limit on the cache size, you will end up with an empty<br>cache. I do believe that there is a bug that needs to be fixed.<br><br></br></blockquote><div>With Freebsd 10.0, I tried the 9.10 leak work around by with <span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">max-cache-size, and it didn't stop the named memory foot print from growing to 2+ GB.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I need 9.10 for the its white listing of RPZ hits.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I'm building a new Freebsd 9.3 VM and bind 9.10. (vmtools doesn't support fbsd 10)</span></div><div><br></div><div>Len</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</body></html>