Danny Mayer wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> You'd have to dig into the source and really understand what's happening
>> now vs. what was happening before in order for me to answer this
>> question, and by the time you had done that work I would not need to
>> answer this question for you. :)
>
> Yo
Doug Barton wrote:
> Vinny Abello wrote:
>> Just for clarification, is there any downside to this autoconf fix
>> vs. how it was previously working?
>
> It was not working correctly previously, so no.
>
>> Does autoconf still not understand AMD64 on FreeBSD
>
> You're confusing "autoconf" and "
At Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:58:07 -0500,
Vinny Abello wrote:
> My basic question is: Is there any advantage to compiling BIND in
> the previous manner now that there is a fix in the BIND source code?
Do you mean compiling BIND with the memory leak fix and without the
FreeBSD port change by "in the pre
At Thu, 1 Jan 2009 00:47:10 -0500,
Vinny Abello wrote:
> I just loaded up the BIND 9.5.1 port on FreeBSD 7.0 AMD64 with
> threads. I don't see the prominent memory leak present on my system
> any longer. I lost track of this thread and think two different
> changes might have been made, however.
At Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:04:49 -0500,
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Personally, I'm not convinced that it will make a difference outside of
> Windows. The fix is to make sure a lock gets destroyed when done and the
> function exits. On Windows the lock gets created and memory is allocated
> for it outside o
Vinny Abello wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Danny Mayer [mailto:ma...@gis.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:05 AM
>> To: jinmei_tat...@isc.org
>> Cc: Vinny Abello; do...@freebsd.org; bind-us...@isc.org
>> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND me
> -Original Message-
> From: Danny Mayer [mailto:ma...@gis.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:05 AM
> To: jinmei_tat...@isc.org
> Cc: Vinny Abello; do...@freebsd.org; bind-us...@isc.org
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
>
> JINMEI Tat
JINMEI Tatuya / ...@l@C#:H wrote:
> At Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:25 -0500,
> Vinny Abello wrote:
>
>> Has anybody else tried this patch for you? I haven't had time to
>> look into this at all. If nobody has tried this yet, I'll get around
>> to it when I can and let you know the result.
>
> No one
I've just committed the update to 9.5.1, including the ARCH=x86_64
trick (which I verified on one of our amd64 test platforms). Thanks
for bringing this to my attention, and thanks to everyone that helped
out.
Doug
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, ivan jr sy wrote:
I have confirmed that the ARCH=x86_64 trick resolved the issues with my
configuration. I have tested this with an authoritative and recursive
dns/bind95 port with modified Makefile.
I have not fully tested the acl.c and iptable.c since the patch suit my
, Doug Barton wrote:
> From: Doug Barton
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
> To: "bind-us...@isc.org"
> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 1:15 PM
> JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
> > At Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:35:32 -0500,
> > Vinny Abello wrote:
>
At Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:13:10 -0800,
Doug Barton wrote:
> And can someone please state affirmatively that the patches to acl.c
> and iptable.c do the right thing, with or without the patch to the port?
This patch completely fixed the hole in my test environment. With
this patch you don't need th
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
> At Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:35:32 -0500,
> Vinny Abello wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I just want to contribute that I can
>> confirm this behavior on my systems as well. On BIND 9.5.0-P2,
>
> From an off-list discussion, I found there was indeed memory leak
At Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:14:06 +0300,
Dmitry Rybin wrote:
> > If you can allow the multiple views to share a single cache, one
> > possibility is to create a separate "localhost" view as the single
> > caching view and forward all recursive queries to that view:
>
> I add this lines in named.conf
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>>
>>> Have you any ideas how to limit memory usage?
>> Unfortunately not, unless you can consolidate the caching views to a
>> small number of views.
>
> If you can allow the multiple views to share a single cache, one
> possibility is to create a separate "localhost"
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:53:23 +0300,
> Dmitry Rybin wrote:
>
>> Thank's to JINMEI Tatuya for support.
>> I have over 40 views, defined in named.conf, max-memory for cache -
>> 32Mb. Named daemon allocate over 2 Gb per 24 hours of work.
>
> Each view has a separate ca
At Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:07:12 -0800,
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
>
> At Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:53:23 +0300,
> Dmitry Rybin wrote:
>
> > Thank's to JINMEI Tatuya for support.
> > I have over 40 views, defined in named.conf, max-memory for cache -
> > 32Mb. Named daemon allocate over 2 Gb per 24 hours of wo
At Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:53:23 +0300,
Dmitry Rybin wrote:
> Thank's to JINMEI Tatuya for support.
> I have over 40 views, defined in named.conf, max-memory for cache -
> 32Mb. Named daemon allocate over 2 Gb per 24 hours of work.
Each view has a separate cache DB. So if each of these 40 views
rea
Thank's to JINMEI Tatuya for support.
I have over 40 views, defined in named.conf, max-memory for cache -
32Mb. Named daemon allocate over 2 Gb per 24 hours of work.
Have you any ideas how to limit memory usage?
Dmitry Rybin wrote:
> max-cache-size 64M;
> # /usr/bin/limits -v 1200M /usr/local/sbi
Thank's to JINMEI Tatuya for support.
I have over 40 views, defined in named.conf, max-memory for cache -
32Mb. Named daemon allocate over 2 Gb per 24 hours of work.
Have you any ideas how to limit memory usage?
Dmitry Rybin wrote:
> max-cache-size 64M;
> # /usr/bin/limits -v 1200M /usr/local/sbi
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:25:42 +0300,
> Dmitry Rybin wrote:
>
>> OK. I just make bind from src with ./configure --enable-threads & gcc
>> option -static.
>>
>> file /usr/local/sbin/named-test
>> /usr/local/sbin/named-test: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1
>
At Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:25:42 +0300,
Dmitry Rybin wrote:
> OK. I just make bind from src with ./configure --enable-threads & gcc
> option -static.
>
> file /usr/local/sbin/named-test
> /usr/local/sbin/named-test: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1
> (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.1 (701100),
max-cache-size 64M;
# /usr/bin/limits -v 1200M /usr/local/sbin/named-test -c
/etc/namedb/named.conf
Over 10 minutes of work and core dumped:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0058c3fc in thr_kill ()
#1 0x005c5a68 in abort ()
#2 0x00597af7 in malloc ()
#3 0x0056645a in isc_mem_crea
OK. I just make bind from src with ./configure --enable-threads & gcc
option -static.
file /usr/local/sbin/named-test
/usr/local/sbin/named-test: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1
(FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 7.1 (701100), statically linked, FreeBSD-style,
not stripped
fresh system (yesterd
At Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:50:22 +0300,
Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > At Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:05:27 +0300,
> > Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I test patch, add to bind95/Makefile
> >> .if (${ARCH} == "amd64")
> >> ARCH= x86_64
>
t;
> my patch for the port is the same as yours...
>
> thanks!
> ===
> ..if ${ARCH} == "amd64"
> ARCH=x86_64
> ..endif
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL
08, Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
> To: "JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:05:27 +0300,
> Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I test patch, add to bind95/Makefile
>> .if (${ARCH} == "amd64")
>> ARCH= x86_64
>> .endif
>
> Future versions of BIND9 will support amd64 in its configure script to
> workar
BIND 9.5.0-P2) + threading enabled
>
> thanks!
>
> --- On Wed, 12/10/08, Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> From: Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
>> To: "Vinny Abello" <[EM
> -Original Message-
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 3:38 PM
> To: Vinny Abello
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
>
> At Tue, 9
At Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:25 -0500,
Vinny Abello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anybody else tried this patch for you? I haven't had time to
> look into this at all. If nobody has tried this yet, I'll get around
> to it when I can and let you know the result.
No one else other than by myself. I
ROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 1:06 AM
> To: Vinny Abello
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
>
> At Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:35:32 -0500,
> Vinny Abello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
At Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:05:27 +0300,
Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I test patch, add to bind95/Makefile
> .if (${ARCH} == "amd64")
> ARCH= x86_64
> .endif
Future versions of BIND9 will support amd64 in its configure script to
workaround the FreeBSD port for amd64.
Regarding
been directed to the concern of FreeBSD + amd64 platform +
FreeBSD port dns/bind95 (BIND 9.5.0-P2) + threading enabled
thanks!
--- On Wed, 12/10/08, Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Dmitry Rybin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumpt
Hello!
I test patch, add to bind95/Makefile
.if (${ARCH} == "amd64")
ARCH= x86_64
.endif
work/bind-9.5.0-P2/config.log
uname -m = amd64
/usr/bin/uname -p = amd64
Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd
Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler
ISC_ARCH_DIR='x86_32'
build='x86_64-portbld-
At Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:35:32 -0500,
Vinny Abello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I just want to contribute that I can
> confirm this behavior on my systems as well. On BIND 9.5.0-P2,
>From an off-list discussion, I found there was indeed memory leak in
the code of 9.5
xactly?
-Vinny
> -Original Message-
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 4:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vinny Abello; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 4:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vinny Abello; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
>
> At Thu, 27
asurement_tools.php
Thanks
- ivan
--- On Fri, 11/28/08, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Vinny Abell
At Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:35:30 -0800 (PST),
ivan jr sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so does this memory leak only occur if
> @ISC_ARCH_DIR@ is "noatomic" under FreeBSD amd64?
> and not when its "x86_32" ?
First off, note that I have no explicit evidence of memory leak. But
*if there is indeed lea
so does this memory leak only occur if
@ISC_ARCH_DIR@ is "noatomic" under FreeBSD amd64?
and not when its "x86_32" ?
--- On Fri, 11/28/08, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: dn
At Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:04:58 -0800 (PST),
ivan jr sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - with a minor tweak, it fixed the memory consumption problem.
>
> if you compile BIND9.5.0-P2 on FreeBSD by hand, the host_cpu is 'x86_32'
> # grep -e "host_cpu" -e "ARCH" config.log
> ISC_ARCH_DIR='x86_32'
> host_
ith x number of AMD64 cores...
- ivan
--- On Thu, 11/27/08, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: "Vinny Abello" <[EMAIL
At Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:34:59 -0800 (PST),
ivan jr sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know this is a an old thread, but I wish to resurrect this in
> hopes to find answers..
>
> 9.5 + threads on FreeBSD 7 is better performance wise, but there is
> this problem.
>
> 9.4 + threads on FreeBSD 7 is a
y Abello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Vinny Abello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
> To: "JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday,
45 matches
Mail list logo
