|From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
|[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Raymond Popowich
|Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:35 PM
|To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
|Subject: 2GB Memory Limits on Solaris 10
|
|
|
|Hello,
|
|I am running several Bind 9.6.0-P1 DNS resolvers on Solaris
In message <99e6a67a9da87041a8020fbc11f480b3031cc...@exvs01.dsw.net>, "Jeff Lig
htner" writes:
> BIND versions on RHEL (e.g. 9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2) have backported
> patches from later BIND versions so it isn't exactly the same animal as
> the EOL 9.3 which is why it isn't listed simply as 9.3
I'v
It doesn't really matter whether the vendor claims that the data is
"also" cached data, since the RFC clearly states "if the desired data is
present in authoritative form [...] use the authoritative data in
preference to cached data". In other words, authoritative data trumps
cached data. This
enable-largefile support turns on 64 bit filesystem, but not 64 bit memory.
Normally under Solaris even a 32 bit process should be able to use the full
4GB address space (or at least 3.5-3.8GB). Try checking your ulimits in the
script that starts the process.
BTW, by default the named process
Hello,
I am running several Bind 9.6.0-P1 DNS resolvers on Solaris 10. The largest
does around 2500 queries/second at peak times. They are configured with
--enable-largefile support. About once a month I am having a problem with
the largest resolvers breaking when the named process hits 2GB. I
There's a standard that says *all* zones beneath the root should be
delegated hierarchically. It's a very broad rule that doesn't depend on
what you happen to be "loading" at any particular time on any particular
server.
It may seem overkill now, if all of your nameservers slave all of your
z
Good day,
Looking through configuration of one of my servers (ns01.local), I have
example.com loading, and test.example.com loading.
In example.com, someone has delegated test.example.com back to the
server:
test.example.comIN NS ns01.local
Since I am loading test.exam
First you should check that you can receive a valid response for the
intended zone from your forwarders (from your caching server) not from your
pc. It wasn't clear from your initial email that this is what you did.
yourcacheserver ~ # dig @forwarder_address A host.fwd.zone.net
Although it may se
Those issues you describe are likely not related to the version, rather the
configuration.
Should you suffer those symptoms again, post their description and your
config here and we¹ll try to help out as best we can :)
When upgrading anything of value I would suggest trying it on a test system.
L
On 06.06.09 01:10, Ben Croswell wrote:
> If you want to force forwarding you will probably want to add the forward
> only; directive.
> By default your server will try to follow NS delegations and then forward if
> it can't follow them
I think it's the opposite - the server will try to query the
Hi,
I am sysadmin of one of the leading ISPs of Saudi Arabia, I am going to
upgrade the bind which is from BIND 9.3.4-P1 to the latest one, so please
can any one confirm that the latest BIND 9.6.0-P1 can be helpful in ISP's
environment. As I have experienced some issues earlier when I installe
11 matches
Mail list logo