Re: BIND 9 Memory Leak?

2 msg	still having one email problem
2 msg	inability to send email - who's problem?
6 msg	problems sending email to various domains
2 msg	Secondary slave DNS not replicate zone files.
2 msg	Memory
2 msg	RR's
5 msg	Multiple PTRs for the same IP
2 msg	Question about the Two Recent Security Bulletins
3 msg	BIND 9.3.3rc3 can't load the config?
17 msg	Problem with DNS on mandriva 2007
3 msg	Bind 9 resolver timeout and ncache behaviour
4 msg	Q: DNS query format
5 msg	bind 9.3
4 msg	BIND 9.5?

BIND 9 Memory Leak?
\ Greg Burch (23 Jan 2007)
. \ Stephen John Smoogen (23 Jan 2007)
. . \ David Ford (23 Jan 2007)
. . \ Tony Earnshaw (24 Jan 2007)
. \ Greg Burch (24 Jan 2007)
. . \ Matthew Schlosser (24 Jan 2007)
. . \ Stephen John Smoogen (24 Jan 2007)
. . \ Bill Larson (25 Jan 2007)

4 msg	setting up round robin
1 msg	post test
3 msg	Records
2 msg	help with DNS cache
4 msg	logging config no longer working as expected

Subject:	Re: BIND 9 Memory Leak?
Group:	Bind-users
From:	Bill Larson
Date:	25 Jan 2007

On Jan 24, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Greg Burch wrote:

> Stephen, thanks for your response. Our servers are serving as caching
> name servers and also serving up internal-only zones. We have
> thousands of clients querying each name server.
>
> You're correct in that we compiled the versions of BIND ourselves, but
> we did not tweak any compiler options from the default.
>
> I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're driving at with the
> "look
> for data that doesn't match your server" suggestion...there definitely
> will be cached Internet data there. The issue I had was that the zone
> files and cache dump added up to 7.7M at that moment in time, yet the
> named process is using 391M of memory. That's a very large
> discrepancy.

Have you considered that if you have "thousands of clients querying
each name server", maybe you should be running a server where 391MB
of memory isn't so great of a concern. If your servers are only
providing DNS services, then these servers could be operating with
512MB of RAM. Increase the amount of RAM and you won't be worrying
about the process size.

Are you running anything else, besides "named", on the servers? A
generally accepted suggestion is to run only your DNS services on
your servers and not run mail, web, etc., servers on the same hardware.

> Since we've begun doing a nightly restart of the named process, we
> have
> not experienced the swapping issues, so it definitely looks like a
> memory leak of some kind from where I'm sitting.

Memory is cheap. This would be the best solution to your problem.

Bill Larson