RE: 2GB Memory Limits on Solaris 10

2009-06-08 Thread Igor V. Ruzanov
|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

Re: Trying to understand DNSSEC and BIND versions better

2009-06-08 Thread Mark Andrews
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

Re: looking for reference to correct behavior

2009-06-08 Thread Kevin Darcy
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

RE: 2GB Memory Limits on Solaris 10

2009-06-08 Thread Matthew Huff
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

2GB Memory Limits on Solaris 10

2009-06-08 Thread Raymond Popowich
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

Re: Delegation of already loading zones?

2009-06-08 Thread Kevin Darcy
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

Delegation of already loading zones?

2009-06-08 Thread Todd Snyder
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

Re: Single Zone Forwarding Dilema

2009-06-08 Thread Kal Feher
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

Re: new version of bind

2009-06-08 Thread Kal Feher
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

Re: Single Zone Forwarding Dilema

2009-06-08 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
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

new version of bind

2009-06-08 Thread Mohammed Ejaz
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