On 2/16/22 17:15, Borja Marcos wrote:
Now I have 9.11.36, 9.16.24 and 9.18.0
What I have noticed with 9.18.0, which is running on the heaviest loaded
server, is less memory footprint.
I started it on Monday and according to top it’s taking 486 MB (SIZE) - 375 MB
(RES). And the memory press
> On 16 Feb 2022, at 10:53, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Just coming back to this...
>
> I notice that the release notes for 9.16.25 say the memory leak issue on
> FreeBSD is now fixed:
>
> *
>
> On FreeBSD, TCP connections leaked a small amount of heap memory, leading to
> an e
Hi all.
Just coming back to this...
I notice that the release notes for 9.16.25 say the memory leak issue on
FreeBSD is now fixed:
*
On FreeBSD, TCP connections leaked a small amount of heap memory,
leading to an eventual out-of-memory problem. This has been fixed in:
https://gitlab.i
On 9/13/21 09:40, Ondřej Surý wrote:
Hi,
if you have reliable reproducer, please fill an issue at
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues
While this mailing list is monitored by the BIND 9 team, it’s more practical to
have an issue filled by
a person experiencing the problem wher
> On 13 Sep 2021, at 09:40, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> if you have reliable reproducer, please fill an issue at
> https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues
>
> While this mailing list is monitored by the BIND 9 team, it’s more practical
> to have an issue filled by
> a person e
Hi,
if you have reliable reproducer, please fill an issue at
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues
While this mailing list is monitored by the BIND 9 team, it’s more practical to
have an issue filled by
a person experiencing the problem where we can interact directly and ask
addit
On 9/13/21 09:12, Borja Marcos wrote:
2- Adding a bogus 127.10.whatever to the spare Ethernet interface I am not
using, per a previous comment on
this thread about a memory leak due to interfaces with no addresses.
This issue does need to get fixed. Assigning random, unused IP addresses
to
> On 10 Sep 2021, at 13:30, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/10/21 12:35, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>
>> Freebsd 12.2-STABLE here with servers running BIND 9.16.15, 9.16.18
>> and 9.16.20, all using libuv 1.41.0, all installed from ports. Typical
>> query load from around 3k qps to around 14k q
On 9/10/21 12:35, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Freebsd 12.2-STABLE here with servers running BIND 9.16.15, 9.16.18
and 9.16.20, all using libuv 1.41.0, all installed from ports. Typical
query load from around 3k qps to around 14k qps. No sign of any memory
leak.
Would be interesting to hear you
>> 2.5 days in, and 9.11 is still running good, with no crashing.
>>
>> Safe to say that this memory leak is definitely an issue with 9.16.
>
> Which version of libuv are you using? I am running 1.41 and the latest is
> 1.42.
>
> I haven’t seen that behavior and my recursives handle about 100,0
On 9/10/21 10:29, Borja Marcos wrote:
Which version of libuv are you using? I am running 1.41 and the latest is 1.42.
I'm running libuv-1.41.0.
I haven’t seen that behavior and my recursives handle about 100,000 requests
per minute.
Just in case I have updated libuv on one of them.
I
> On 9 Sep 2021, at 06:59, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> 2.5 days in, and 9.11 is still running good, with no crashing.
>
> Safe to say that this memory leak is definitely an issue with 9.16.
Which version of libuv are you using? I am running 1.41 and the latest is 1.42.
I haven’t seen that behavior
2.5 days in, and 9.11 is still running good, with no crashing.
Safe to say that this memory leak is definitely an issue with 9.16.
Mark.
On 9/6/21 19:30, Mark Tinka wrote:
So I've decided to downgrade our busiest resolvers to bind911-9.11.35.
Mark.
__
So I've decided to downgrade our busiest resolvers to bind911-9.11.35.
Mark.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
I'm seriously considering going back to BIND-9.11.
Mark.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
Contact us at https:
On 9/3/21 07:17, Mark Tinka wrote:
Let me monitor and report back. Thanks.
So since running the updated interface changes from Friday, BIND died
again due running out swap space, earlier today.
Seems like it may be more than how BIND is listening on various interfaces.
Are you able to
IPv6 address, or the keyword "any".
// listen-on-v6 { ::1; };
listen-on-v6 { any; };
It is now listening on all interfaces, both IPv4 and IPv6 localhost
addresses, as well as the IPv6 link-local addresses.
I've also removed the 'max-cache-size' setting, which sh
On 9/2/21 2:59 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 9/2/21 23:51, Michael Sinatra wrote:
I have noticed this also and have opened a (similar but different)
issue, but it's a bit weird how it manifests itself.
On your freebsd installation, make sure that all of your interfaces
are configured and that
On 9/2/21 23:51, Michael Sinatra wrote:
I have noticed this also and have opened a (similar but different)
issue, but it's a bit weird how it manifests itself.
On your freebsd installation, make sure that all of your interfaces
are configured and that bind can listen on them. (They don't
On 9/2/21 2:35 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Not sure if this issue offers some clue:
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2575
I see its maintainer just closed it 11hrs ago...
I have noticed this also and have opened a (similar but different)
issue, but it's a bit weird how it manifes
Not sure if this issue offers some clue:
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2575
I see its maintainer just closed it 11hrs ago...
Mark.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this li
On 9/2/21 16:30, Michal Nowak wrote:
Mark, what's the exact BIND 9.16 version which is crashing for you?
I started off with 9.16.19 several weeks ago (coming from 9.11), and
that was crashing.
I upgraded to 9.16.20 last week, and it's crashing too.
Why do you say that the reason for cr
ing out of swap space.
An increase in swap space by creating a 4GB swap file did not help.
So we are now playing with the 'max-cache-size' value in BIND. The
system has 15GB of physical RAM. Limiting BIND to 13GB of memory does
not work; 'named' still crashes due to a lack of swa
n swap space by creating a 4GB swap file did not help.
So we are now playing with the 'max-cache-size' value in BIND. The
system has 15GB of physical RAM. Limiting BIND to 13GB of memory does
not work; 'named' still crashes due to a lack of swap space.
We have then switched to %
Hello,
I have a question about the "max-cache-size" parameter for named.conf.
I'm thinking about this parameter value,
How does everyone tuning this value?
Would you let us know if you have any recommendations?
How is memory used for "named".
Such as to how allocated pr
ok, thanks everyone!
Cheers, Jakob
On 18.04.19 16:13, Tony Finch wrote:
> Jakob Dhondt wrote:
>> I was wondering if this option only includes DNS queries/responses
>> getting cached or anything else as well, e.g. RPZ zones being kept in
>> memory.
> RPZ counts as authoritative data, so I believe
Jakob Dhondt wrote:
>
> I was wondering if this option only includes DNS queries/responses
> getting cached or anything else as well, e.g. RPZ zones being kept in
> memory.
RPZ counts as authoritative data, so I believe it isn't included in the
cache size.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://d
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 04:02:27PM +0200, Jakob Dhondt wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> just a quick question about the max-cache-size option in bind. I
> couldn't find any details online.
>
>
> I was wondering if this option only includes DNS queries/responses
> getting ca
Hi everyone,
just a quick question about the max-cache-size option in bind. I
couldn't find any details online.
I was wondering if this option only includes DNS queries/responses
getting cached or anything else as well, e.g. RPZ zones being kept in
memory.
Cheers,
Jakob
--
SWITCH
xml2
I get about 1800 readable lines. ( It also works with FQDN instead of
localhost )
But how to interpret this information ?
> ... max-cache-size works fine for us on 9.10.2-P4 ...
This is also my experience. With an older version I don't have issues that bind
uses too much of memory.
L via stylesheet, and show you memory context usage. Have a
look and see what stands out.
FWIW, max-cache-size works fine for us on 9.10.2-P4, and limits it to
the appropriate value. We see this reflected in RSS as well.
___
Please visit https://lists.is
mory. So I add the following lines in
the options section of bind.conf
max-cache-size 629145600 ;
cleaning-interval 120 ; // 2 hours
max-cache-ttl 14400 ; // 4 hours
max-ncache-ttl 14400 ; // 4 hours
But this does not help. I thought
-Original Message-
From: Doug Barton
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 11:49 AM
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
Cc:
Subject: Re: Recommended value for max-cache-size for cache-only shared
hosts..
>On 6/5/2012 11:30 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>
On 6/5/2012 11:30 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> Good question, I wonder the same thing:-) I don't remember the
> original plan, but I guess it was actually planned to be deprecated
> but it has just been forgotten or left as a lower priority thing since
> then.
So, get busy! It's not like you
At Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:53:31 -0700,
Doug Barton wrote:
> >> If your cache is too small the CPU will peg when the cleaning-interval
> >> goes. Maybe that's changed but the behavior still exists in the 9.7
> >> branch. Setting your cache size really depends on your query load. On a
> >> resol
On 06/04/2012 11:36, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:14:06 +,
> Dan Mason wrote:
>
>>> cleaning interval has been effectively no-op since BIND 9.5. Tweaking
>>> it won't improve performance, although it shouldn't cause a bad effect
>>> either.
>>
>> If your cache is too s
At Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:14:06 +,
Dan Mason wrote:
> > cleaning interval has been effectively no-op since BIND 9.5. Tweaking
> > it won't improve performance, although it shouldn't cause a bad effect
> > either.
>
> If your cache is too small the CPU will peg when the cleaning-interval goes.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:11:48PM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> At Fri, 01 Jun 2012 03:27:22 -0700,
> cleaning interval has been effectively no-op since BIND 9.5. Tweaking
> it won't improve performance, although it shouldn't cause a bad effect
> either.
If your cache is too small
At Fri, 01 Jun 2012 03:27:22 -0700,
Doug Barton wrote:
> One thing that can help is to set the cleaning interval more
> aggressively, but that can also cause performance problems for your
> clients if you are CPU bound, so use that option with care, and monitor
> the results after a change.
clea
On 31.05.12 22:26, blr maani wrote:
hmmm.. 75%-85% seems too large because the host runs email application in
addition to cache-and-forward-only BIND (for better local caching). So, I
was wondering if there are any best/proven practice/recommendations for
such shared application hosts ?
The def
On Jun 1 2012, Michael Graff wrote:
[...] The default of 32 MB is actually a fairly new thing.
Surely the default went back to 0 (effectively unlimited) long ago?
2253. [func] "max-cache-size" defaults to 32M.
"max-acache-size" defaul
On 05/31/2012 22:26, blr maani wrote:
> Doug,
> hmmm.. 75%-85% seems too large because the host runs email application
> in addition to cache-and-forward-only BIND (for better local caching).
So get more RAM, or split your services onto multiple systems. Yes, I
realize that may not be possible f
seems like a good starting point.
>
> --Michael
>
> On May 31, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote:
> >
> >> Question:
> >> what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum
>
8 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote:
> >
> >> Question:
> >> what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum
> >> usage ?
> >
> > You should not restrict the size of the cache a
ut or BIND itself to swap.
75% or 85% range seems like a good starting point.
--Michael
On May 31, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote:
>
>> Question:
>> what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum
>&g
On 5/31/2012 1:51 PM, blrmaani wrote:
> Question:
> what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' for optimum
> usage ?
You should not restrict the size of the cache at all if you want the
best performance. BIND will use as much memory as it needs in order to
s
We are planning to use cache-only BIND configuration on our hosts.
These hosts are shared hosts i.e BIND runs along with other
applications on these hosts. RAM size on these hosts = 8GB and hard-
disk size=500GB.
Question:
what is the recommended configuration for 'max-cache-size' f
Dennis Perisa wrote:
> Is there a rule of thumb when setting max-cache-size? e.g. max physical
> memory * 0.4
> Is there even a need to set max-cache-size on a server with plenty of
> memory
> (>10GB) running only BIND?
I'd normally not recommend to limit the cache siz
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Dennis Perisa wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a rule of thumb when setting max-cache-size? e.g. max physical
memory * 0.4
Is there even a need to set max-cache-size on a server with plenty of memory
(>10GB) running only BIND?
Regards
Dennis
Dennis, since getting the answ
Hi all,
Is there a rule of thumb when setting max-cache-size? e.g. max physical
memory * 0.4
Is there even a need to set max-cache-size on a server with plenty of memory
(>10GB) running only BIND?
Regards
Dennis
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-us
On 06/02/10 01:31, Techi wrote:
but, my question is still not answered.
Why on earth such huge defference in the number of connections on the firewall
with the max-cache-size on and off? I still don't get it.
Imagine the cache as a bucket. With a large bucket the chances of the
answer
ransfer that to our vendors, but, my question is still not answered.
Why on earth such huge defference in the number of connections on the firewall
with the max-cache-size on and off? I still don't get it.
P.
>
> Just sayin'...
>
> W
>
> On Jun 1, 2010, at 8:35
is 4096, the default of centos)
Anyway, after the proposal of a friend of mine, I removed the the
max-cache-
size limit (that was set to 256MB.
After a restart of bind, the FW guys reported a huge drop on
connections
(<1)!
Additionally, I have no crashes so far (in contract with 1-2
course, only RH can say that and
> I am not RH.
You are right, it is not a "true" 9.3.6-P1, it contains numerous
enhancements from later releases (like "allow-query-cache").
If you set too low max-cache-size and it is really busy recursion server
(from number of conne
iginal Message-
> From: bind-users-bounces+tsnyder=rim@lists.isc.org
> [mailto:bind-users-bounces+tsnyder=rim@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
> Techi Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:36 AM
> To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
> Subject: max-cache-size query
>
> Hallo,
> Recently,
bounces+tsnyder=rim@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Techi
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:36 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: max-cache-size query
Hallo,
Recently, I faced huge problems with my DNS servers (bind crashed with no
apparent reason). Some of the symptons were:
* Huge number of con
096, the default of centos)
Anyway, after the proposal of a friend of mine, I removed the the max-cache-
size limit (that was set to 256MB.
After a restart of bind, the FW guys reported a huge drop on connections
(<1)!
Additionally, I have no crashes so far (in contract with 1-2 per week).
S
57 matches
Mail list logo
