bind 9.2.1 ON rh9

[Mark Andrews]

> Thanks Mark and Kevin, 
> 
> This helps.. we are thinking we will upgrade to 9.2.4 at minimum. 

	BIND 9.2.4 is also past its "use by" date.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:28 PM
> To: Kevin Darcy
> Cc: bind-users at isc.org
> Subject: Re: bind 9.2.1 ON rh9 
> 
> 
> > Mueller, Rex wrote:
> > > We need to look into a problem, can you point in a direction in
> which to
> > > look? 
> > >  
> > >
> > > We are having a problem on a box that acts as our primary DNS
> machine
> > > running Redhat 9.0 and BIND 9.2.1.. Periodically it quits replying
> to
> > > DNS requests, we clear the cache with rndc flush, sometimes, that
> does
> > > not work we have to kill -9 named processes. and restart. Sometimes
> it
> > > hangs and halts the system altogether.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I've looked in /var/log/messages there are RRSets and some
> lameserver
> > > entries but we can't seem to isolate what the problem truly is. 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > The hardware is a Dell server, it'd had been working fine for a
> couple
> > > of year and as it was we'd have to rndc flush periodically (once per
> > > month..) now it is occuring daily. Sometimes to the point of halting
> the
> > > box. Can't say whether it's hardware or software. 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Can we put our primary DNS address (via ifconfig) to the secondary
> and
> > > take the primary offline to do hardware diagnostics? 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > At this point we are baffled and need some assistance. Any insight
> from
> > > the group would be greatly appreciated.. 
> > >   
> > 1. BIND 9.2.1 is pretty old at this point. I'd upgrade that,
> regardless 
> > of whether it's the fix to your problem or not.
> > 2. If an rndc flush helps some of the time, my knee-jerk reaction is
> to 
> > say you're experiencing some sort of memory starvation issue. You
> didn't 
> > give any indication of how much memory you have in the box, how much 
> > named uses typically, query volume/patterns, memory usage statistics 
> > over a given period of time, etc. so I'm left to reckless speculation
> on 
> > that front.
> 
> 	I would say that these represent broken delegations.  Something
> 	on the parent side does not match something on the child side.
> 	e.g.
> 	      NS RRset and/or address records sets for the nameservers
> 	      or NS RRset and/or address records where the nameservers
> live
> 	      or NS RRset and/or address records where the nameservers'
> 		 nameservers live
> 	      or ...
> 
> > 3. If this problem "halts the system altogether", then, my second 
> > knee-jerk reaction is to say that this goes beyond a mere DNS-software
> 
> > problem, and enters the realm of OS (kernel-level) and/or hardware 
> > problem. Unless perhaps RedHat 9.0 is *really* bad at dealing with 
> > memory-starvation conditions (in which case it might just be
> symptomatic).
> 
> 	This sounds like memory starvation though you should get log
> 	messages to that effect.
> 
> > 4. Can you migrate the address of your primary DNS server to another 
> > box, so that you can do diagnostics, without disrupting your clients? 
> > That's not even really a DNS question. It all depends on your 
> > LAN/switch/router/firewall configuration/topology. I have no idea what
> 
> > devices or paths are used between the clients and servers in your 
> > network, and what the configurations/rules that those devices might be
> 
> > using or not using...
> > 
> >
> 
> >                                  - Kevin
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org