High memory consumption in bind 9.18.2

[Ondřej Surý]

What Emmanuel said…

--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)

My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.

> On 4. 8. 2022, at 19:15, Emmanuel Fusté <manu.fuste at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users