dnsperf and BIND memory consumption

[Danny Mayer]

Vinny Abello wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Danny Mayer [mailto:mayer at gis.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:05 AM
>> To: Jinmei_Tatuya at isc.org
>> Cc: Vinny Abello; dougb at FreeBSD.org; bind-users at isc.org
>> Subject: Re: dnsperf and BIND memory consumption
>>
>> JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L at C#:H wrote:
>>> At Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:25 -0500,
>>> Vinny Abello <vinny at tellurian.com> 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.  It worked perfectly for me, i.e.,
>> I
>>> could reproduce the problem and I could completely eliminate the leak
>>> with the patch.  One thing I was not certain about in an off-list
>>> discussion that led to this patch was that the patch reportedly
>> solved
>>> the leak only partially.  I've been hoping to confirm that, but
>>> unfortunately I've not got any followup since then.
>>>
>>> So, basically, I believe the problem was solved, it would also help
>> if
>>> you could confirm it.
>> 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 of the function using it and needs to be explicitly
>> destroyed, but my understanding of pthreads was that this worked
>> differently on Unix and the lock structure would be automatically
>> destroyed when the function is exited since the lock was local to the
>> function.
>>
>> I'd be interested in seeing the results of this.
>>  w
>> Danny
> 
> 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. One via the port and one in BIND itself,
so I don't know which fix is actually in effect here, but the results
seem good so far. Maybe Doug and Jinmei and comment on their respective
changes just for the record.

The fix that Jinmei mentioned should be in the 9.5.1 release since it
was found during the 9.5.0-P2-W2 development so you would not see it in
9.5.1. In addition, that code was new in 9.5.0 so you would not have
seen it in prior releases.

Danny

> 
> -Vinny
> 
>