I can’t really parse your message. I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide a reproducer. And yet again you come and ask that we do the debugging for you.
The currency here that you need to pay to get help is sharing - sharing the information, sharing the experience. Don’t mistake free software for free buffet where you come and just take. And don’t be mistaken - I was not helping you specifically, I was just disputing your claim that BIND 9.18 takes more memory than 9.16 because that claim didn’t match our own measurements. Have a nice day, -- Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. > On 25. 7. 2022, at 15:11, Raman kumar <kumarraman....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Ondřej > We really appreciate your help in debugging this issue. > > Observations that we have shared are with 32M data of 15 characters and we > have configured jemalloc and bind using. > Downloaded the jemalloc-5.3.0.tar.bz2 and configure using below command > # ./configure --prefix=/usr > Downloaded bind 9.18.3 from ISC website > # ./configure --prefix=/opt/bind --sysconfdir=/etc/opt/bind --with-openssl=no > --disable-doh > > · Bind compiled with openssl 1.0 and openssl 1.1 behavior was the same, > in 9.18.3 memory usage was high wrt 9.16.21. > > Can you please guide us about your configuration and compilation process > after which you observed low memory usage? > > If possible can you please share the named.conf files and the loading > mechanism followed. > > Regards, > Raman > >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:00 PM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >> Hey, >> >> I did a measurement with 1M small generated zones that we are >> using internally for the performance testing and here are some numbers: >> >> The measured values are USS/PSS/RSS using `smem -P named -k` >> >> BIND 9.16 w/o jemalloc: 10.9G/10.9G/10.9G (default configuration) >> BIND 9.16 with jemalloc: 10.1G/10.2G/10.2G [1] >> >> BIND 9.18 w/o jemalloc: 10.7G/10.7G/10.7G (not recommended) >> BIND 9.18 with jemalloc: 9.9G/9.9G/9.9G (default configuration) >> >> BIND 9.19 w/o jemalloc: 10.5G/10.5G/10.6G >> BIND 9.19 with jemalloc: 9.8G/9.8G/9.8G [2] >> >> This is consistent with our other measurements that the memory >> usage is slightly lower with 9.18 compared to 9.16. >> >> As you hadn’t shared any other details, there’s not much we can >> do here, so you are pretty much on your own. But I would say that >> 1GB extra of memory in the context of loading 1M zones is not >> worth too much effort. >> >> 1. just preloading jemalloc saves some memory as compared to the default >> system allocator >> 2. our expectations are to go even lower during the 9.19/9.20 development >> cycle, but no promises yet >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Ondřej Surý (He/Him) >> ond...@isc.org >> >> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel >> obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >> > On 11. 7. 2022, at 6:25, Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > yes, I did. And I see no problem here. The software changes between the >> > versions and roughly 10% increase doesn’t seem like something that should >> > be worrying or worth any deep investigation. You simply cannot expect >> > “faster”, “better”, “contains new features” and *“same”* together. >> > >> > Ondřej >> > -- >> > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >> > >> > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not >> > feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> > >> >> On 11. 7. 2022, at 6:09, Raman kumar <kumarraman....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> Did you get a chance to look into the data that I shared above? The >> >> tools(ps_mem, pmap ) that you recommended to compare the RAM consumption >> >> between 9.18.x and 9.16.x are also showing that memory consumption is >> >> more in 9.18.x compared to 9.16.x. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Raman >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 9:08 PM Raman kumar <kumarraman....@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> In continuation to my previous mails, sharing memory usage by bind >> >> 9.16.21 and 9.18.3 using pmap and ps_mem tools. >> >> >> >> We have observed memory usage in 9.18.3 is higher by approximately 1.10 >> >> GB with the same amount of data loaded on both bind versions. >> >> Attaching pmap output for both bind versions in this mail which also >> >> shows memory used by heap/mmap on 9.18.3 is ~10.16GB whereas 9.16.21 was >> >> consuming ~9.05GB >> >> >> >> 9.16.21 >> >> ====== >> >> ps_mem 7543 >> >> Private + Shared = RAM used Program >> >> 9.1 GiB + 262.5 KiB = 9.1 GiB named >> >> >> >> 9.18.3 >> >> ===== >> >> ps_mem 8456 >> >> Private + Shared = RAM used Program >> >> 10.2 GiB + 162.0 KiB = 10.2 GiB named >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Raman >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:06 AM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 24. 6. 2022, at 5:28, Nagaraju Amarana <amarana.nagar...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Hi Ondrej, >> >>> >> >>> As per the BIND stats usage is lower than the 9.16 however it is in the >> >>> other way when compared with the system stats. Any idea on this >> >>> difference? >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I already mentioned some below - memory fragmentation plays a role. Using >> >> jemalloc helps with that. >> >> >> >> Other factors are mentioned in the resources I’ve sent - have you read >> >> it? - shared libraries are also accounted in this space. Using the >> >> numbers from statm (or even ps/top) is only informative and makes sense >> >> only as hint - f.e. when memory leaks. Or comparing the exactly same >> >> builds with same libraries linked etc. >> >> >> >>> I think user need to consider the memory allocation based on the system >> >>> usage otherwise OS may crash the process due to out of memory. >> >> >> >> No, not really. First of all, OOM killer makes sure it doesn’t crash the >> >> operating system, but kills a selected process to free up the memory. >> >> >> >>> Do you agree? With this can i say 9.18.x memory usage is higher than >> >>> 9.16.x? >> >> >> >> No, not really. >> >> >> >> Ondrej >> >> -- >> >> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >> >> >> >> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not >> >> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Nagaraju A. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:08 AM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >> >>> The stats that you sent does show that 9.18 is internally using little >> >>> bit less memory than 9.16. Also please note that your 9.16 version is >> >>> outdated. >> >>> >> >>> As for the differences - are you using jemalloc to compile BIND 9.18? >> >>> This is the recommended memory allocator for production as it does >> >>> greatly reduce memory fragmentation and increase performance. The statm >> >>> output is not 100% accurate, you need to analyze the output of smaps >> >>> file to get an accurate picture, I’ve listed some tools that can do that >> >>> below. >> >>> >> >>> Measuring actual memory usage is difficult, there are some good hints >> >>> here: >> >>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/131303/how-can-i-measure-the-actual-memory-usage-of-an-application-or-process >> >>> >> >>> That said, I see nothing wrong in the output you posted here. In fact, >> >>> what Petr said earlier is true - the memory usage went down. (Just >> >>> disregard the “total” from stats - it’s misleading it never goes down, >> >>> just up, it only accounts allocations, but deallocations are not counted >> >>> - e.g. it's counter only for developers.) >> >>> >> >>> Use pmap, ps_mem, smem or valgrind massif tool. You can also make >> >>> jemalloc to print various memory statistics at the program exit by >> >>> setting environment variable (see the man page for jemalloc for more >> >>> details). >> >>> >> >>> Ondřej >> >>> -- >> >>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >> >>> >> >>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not >> >>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >>> >> >>>> On 23. 6. 2022, at 19:07, Raman kumar <kumarraman....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Hello, >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks for your reply! >> >>>> >> >>>> I did the analysis of stats generated, top command output and statm >> >>>> file. Memory consumption(inUse) in 9.16 is matching in all places. >> >>>> >> >>>> In 9.18 memory consumption(inUse) is matching in statm file and top >> >>>> command output, but it is not matching with stats generated (please see >> >>>> images below for stats, top command output and statm of bind version >> >>>> 9.16 and 9.18). >> >>>> >> >>>> Can you please guide us to debug high memory uses in bind 9.18 based >> >>>> upon the data shared below? >> >>>> Also need your inputs why stats are not matching with memory(InUse) in >> >>>> bind version 9.18? >> >>>> >> >>>> <image.png> >> >>>> >> >>>> <image.png> >> >>>> <image.png> >> >>>> Regards, >> >>>> Raman >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >> >>>> And what did you find looking at the new data? What are the >> >>>> differences? And by how much? >> >>>> >> >>>> You should not expect other people doing the analysis for yourself. >> >>>> >> >>>> Ondrej >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >> >>>> >> >>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not >> >>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 22. 6. 2022, at 6:30, Raman kumar <kumarraman....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hello, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As suggested, please find the attached artifacts which includes stats >> >>>>> by configuring statistics channel in named.conf, content at >> >>>>> /proc/<PID>/statm, top command output for both 9.16.21 and 9.18.3. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards, >> >>>>> Raman >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:55 PM Ondřej Surý <ond...@isc.org> wrote: >> >>>>> Hi, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> we cannot really help you if you ignore everything that was said to >> >>>>> you regarding the memory measurements. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ondrej. >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him) >> >>>>> ond...@isc.org >> >>>>> >> >>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do >> >>>>> not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > On 16. 6. 2022, at 9:02, Raman kumar <kumarraman....@gmail.com> >> >>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Hello All, >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > We configured bind 9.18, using jemalloc but still memory consumption >> >>>>> > is high in 9.18 as compared to 9.16. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > On version 9.16.21, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB without jemalloc. And >> >>>>> > on 9.18.2, RAM consumption is 4.2 GB with jemalloc with the same >> >>>>> > data. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Is this the expected behaviour or any more tuning is needed? >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > One more thing: does CNAME record length also impact the memory used? >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Regards, >> >>>>> > Raman >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Petr Špaček <pspa...@isc.org> wrote: >> >>>>> > On 18. 05. 22 22:39, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> >>>>> > > Hi Klarstein, >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > Gathering the output of named statschannel should be good enough >> >>>>> > > for initial assessment (json please). >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > For 9.18, make sure the jemalloc is being used at runtime. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Here are commands you asked for: >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 1. when running ./configure, make sure the output at the end has >> >>>>> > this: >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Configuration summary: >> >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>>> > Optional features enabled: >> >>>>> > Memory allocator: jemalloc >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 2. Then, configure statistics channel in named.conf like this: >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > statistics-channels { >> >>>>> > inet 127.0.0.1 port 8080; >> >>>>> > }; >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 3. With that in place you can grab stats from this URL: >> >>>>> > http://127.0.0.1:8080/json/v1 >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > Configuration for v9.16 is the same, just skip the jemalloc part. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > 4. Bonus points for grabbing /proc/<PID>/statm content at the same >> >>>>> > time >> >>>>> > as content of the JSON stats endpoint (if you are on Linux). >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > I hope it helps. >> >>>>> > Petr Špaček >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > Ondrej >> >>>>> > > -- >> >>>>> > > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please >> >>>>> > > do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > >> On 18. 5. 2022, at 22:32, Klaus Darilion via bind-users >> >>>>> > >> <bind-users@lists.isc.org> wrote: >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> Can you please provide some commands whose output you are >> >>>>> > >> interested? I want to collect the statistics for 9.16 before >> >>>>> > >> updating to 9.18. >> >>>>> > >> Thanks >> >>>>> > >> Klaus >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> >>>>> > >>> Von: bind-users <bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org> Im Auftrag >> >>>>> > >>> von Petr >> >>>>> > >>> Špacek >> >>>>> > >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Mai 2022 18:20 >> >>>>> > >>> An: bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>>>> > >>> Betreff: Re: AW: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2 >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> I would be very interested in hearing more! >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> In majority of our internal testing 9.16 has higher memory >> >>>>> > >>> consumption >> >>>>> > >>> than 9.18, especially when 9.18 is compiled with libjemalloc. >> >>>>> > >>> And the >> >>>>> > >>> differences are not small, for some configurations it can be >> >>>>> > >>> even 2x or >> >>>>> > >>> 3x more on 9.16 than it is on 9.18. >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> If you encounter it again please get back to us so we can >> >>>>> > >>> diagnose it. >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> Thank you! >> >>>>> > >>> Petr Špaček >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>>> On 18. 05. 22 8:56, Klaus Darilion via bind-users wrote: >> >>>>> > >>>> I remember we had similar issues with 9.18 (isc ppa packages) >> >>>>> > >>>> and hence >> >>>>> > >>> wen't back to 9.16. But I can not remember the details. >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>> regards >> >>>>> > >>>> Klaus >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> >>>>> > >>>>> Von: bind-users <bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org> Im Auftrag >> >>>>> > >>>>> von >> >>>>> > >>> Ondrej >> >>>>> > >>>>> Surý101 71 l t1h, 18. Mai 2022 08:37 >> >>>>> > >>>>> An: Raman kumar <kumarraman....@gmail.com> >> >>>>> > >>>>> Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>>>> > >>>>> Betreff: Re: High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2 >> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> You did not provided any details, so we can’t really help you. >> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> What is “RAM consumption” anyway? VSZ, RSS, numbers pulled from >> >>>>> > >>> stats >> >>>>> > >>>>> channel from named? >> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> What’s the hardware, what is the configuration, how was BIND 9 >> >>>>> > >>>>> compiled >> >>>>> > >>>>> (or packaged)? >> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> The more details, the better >> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> Ondrej >> >>>>> > >>>>> -- >> >>>>> > >>>>> Ondřej Surý (He/Him) >> >>>>> > >>>>> ond...@isc.org >> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. >> >>>>> > >>>>> Please do >> >>>>> > >>> not >> >>>>> > >>>>> feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. >> >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> On 18. 5. 2022, at 8:32, Raman kumar >> >>>>> > >>>>>> <kumarraman....@gmail.com> >> >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> Hello Team, >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> While upgrading from BIND 9.16.10 to 9.18.2, we have observed >> >>>>> > >>>>>> high >> >>>>> > >>>>> memory consumption. >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> On version 9.16.2, RAM consumption was 3.8 GB. And on 9.18.2, >> >>>>> > >>>>>> RAM >> >>>>> > >>>>> consumption is 4.5 GB. Due to this an increase of >> >>>>> > >>>>> approximately 20 % >> >>>>> > >>>>> memory is observed. >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> Is this the expected behaviour or any tuning is needed? >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks in advance. >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>> > >>>>>> Raman >> >>>>> > >>>>>> -- >> >>>>> > >>>>>> 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for >> >>>>> > >>>>> more >> >>>>> > >>>>> information. >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> bind-users mailing list >> >>>>> > >>>>>> bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>>>> > >>>>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> >>>>> > >>>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> -- >> >>>>> > >>> Petr Špaček >> >>>>> > >>> -- >> >>>>> > >>> 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> >> >>>>> > >>> bind-users mailing list >> >>>>> > >>> bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>>>> > >>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> >>>>> > >> -- >> >>>>> > >> 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for >> >>>>> > >> more information. >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> > >> bind-users mailing list >> >>>>> > >> bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>>>> > >> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > -- >> >>>>> > Petr Špaček >> >>>>> > -- >> >>>>> > 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for more >> >>>>> > information. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > bind-users mailing list >> >>>>> > bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>>>> > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> >>>>> > -- >> >>>>> > 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for more >> >>>>> > information. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > bind-users mailing list >> >>>>> > bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>>>> > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> >>>>> >> >>> -- >> >>> 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for more >> >>> information. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> bind-users mailing list >> >>> bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Nagaraju A. >> >> -- >> >> 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for more >> >> information. >> >> >> >> >> >> bind-users mailing list >> >> bind-users@lists.isc.org >> >> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users >>
-- 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://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
