TCP queries fail - BIND 9.5.0 Windows Server 2003

[Jukka Pakkanen]

Upgraded to 9.5.0b1, and still the same problem. Every W2K or W2k3 server 
runs out of memory in a few days. No matter is it has 1 or 4 gigs of RAM, 
named process just grows and grows...

Jukka

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jukka Pakkanen" <jukka.pakkanen at qnet.fi>
To: <bind-users at isc.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: TCP queries fail - BIND 9.5.0 Windows Server 2003


> Anyone here running 9.5.0 in a windows server??
>
> Would be nice to know if everyone has the same problem with memory or not.
>
> Jukka
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Vinny Abello" <vinny at tellurian.com>
> To: "Jukka Pakkanen" <jukka.pakkanen at qnet.fi>; <bind-users at isc.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:43 AM
> Subject: RE: TCP queries fail - BIND 9.5.0 Windows Server 2003
>
>
> I hadn't noticed the memory usage, but it is possible. I think we have 
> around 2GB of RAM in these servers and they didn't appear to be responding 
> sluggishly as if they were swapping, so I'm not sure if it has anything to 
> do with the memory usage or not. I didn't feel like checking everything 
> under the sun while it wasn't working. I just wanted it to work so I 
> rolled back. It could be another resource issue like a handle or some 
> other resource leak I suppose.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jukka Pakkanen
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:58 PM
>> To: bind-users at isc.org
>> Subject: Re: TCP queries fail - BIND 9.5.0 Windows Server 2003
>>
>> I wonder if this is the same problem we are experiencing after
>> upgrading
>> from 9.4.2 to 9.5.0. Win2K and W2K3. Do you see any memory problems
>> with the
>> named process when this happens? Our named grows until the memory and
>> virtual memory is exhausted, and stops responding to queries.
>> Restarting the
>> service "solves" the problem. For few days.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Vinny Abello" <vinny at tellurian.com>
>> To: <mayer at ntp.isc.org>
>> Cc: <bind-users at isc.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 6:37 AM
>> Subject: RE: TCP queries fail - BIND 9.5.0 Windows Server 2003
>>
>>
>> From: Danny Mayer [mayer at ntp.isc.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:20 PM
>> To: Vinny Abello
>> Cc: bind-users at isc.org
>> Subject: Re: TCP queries fail - BIND 9.5.0 Windows Server 2003
>>
>> Vinny Abello wrote:
>> > I recently upgraded from BIND 9.4.2 on Windows Server 2003 to BIND
>> 9.5.0. I was troubleshooting an issue today only to track it down to
>> the
>> fact that my name servers were no longer servicing requests on TCP port
>> 53. UDP queries continued to work without any issues. On one server I
>> noted in the logs:
>> >
>> > 16-Jun-2008 13:27:30.687 general: .\socket.c:1934: unexpected error:
>> > 16-Jun-2008 13:27:30.687 general: socket() failed: Invalid argument
>> >
>> > All of my name servers would not respond to TCP queries during my
>> tests. Eventually I restarted the BIND service on one of my name
>> servers
>> and everything came back to life and was working properly. I downgraded
>> back to BIND 9.4.2 for the time being.
>> >
>> > This appears to be a bug from what I can tell. When this was
>> happening, if I telnet to port 53, the socket connects, but as soon as
>> any data is sent, the socket is immediately closed. Again, a restart of
>> BIND seemed to fix it. This is on multiple servers as well.
>> >
>> > Has anyone else seen this? I'm cc'ing bind-bugs to file a bug report.
>> >
>> > -Vinny
>>
>> What is going on when this happens? Are you doing zone transfers or
>> something else? If zone transfers, is the from or two the server?
>>
>> Danny
>>
>> Well, the servers currently (unfortunately) are setup as both recursive
>> resolvers in addition to being masters and slaves for over 1000 zones,
>> so
>> they're doing pretty much everything. The primary server that is the
>> master
>> for almost all the zones also experienced this problems as did the
>> slaves.
>> We were alerted to the problem when someone with an application that
>> did TCP
>> based DNS queries said they couldn't resolve anything.
>>
>>
>