Le 04/08/2022 à 17:48, Dmitri Pavlov a écrit
Therefore, a very small request. Would it be possible on your side to run the same
experiment as with (BIND 9.16.32 / BIND 9.18.6 / BIND 9.19.4) one more time but
with BIND 9.16.21 (or any other version in 9.16.x <25 range )?
Why not the opposite ? Why do you insist to run obsolete/inferior patch
level version ? Who want to run something older than the latest patch
release of one maintained version and even more a more than ten patch
level apart ?
The memory consomption diff is not an argument as it is simply
ridiculous vs the used scenario.
Reproduce the 9.16.32 scenario, and if it reproduce Ondřej result, the
conclusion will be evident : bugs in the older patch level as you
clearly reproduced the 9.18 usage which you could surely reproduce with
the 9.19 series too.
Do you really prefer to run buggy but less memory hungry version ?
I understand that you want to have answer to you questions. Simply do
the complete exercise and you will have answers. Don't ask people to do
them for you.
Emmanuel.
PS: there where a switch on the default runtime config switch to "big
server" mode sometimes during the 9.16 series if I recall correctly. It
perhaps explain the diff.
--
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
