> ... > > Heh thanks, yeah...initially I was erring on the side of caution and using > > 9.9.x because it's served us well (~20k recursive clients without any > > significant problems). Meanwhile we've been keeping a close eye on > > community comments, and to be honest opinions wax and wane. Just as I > > think it's stabilized, someone else complains. I suppose sticking to > > 9.9.x a bit longer is wise. > > > > That said, based on the 9.10.1 fixes, we will run it through our own perf > > tests for comparison. Upgrades are automated and easy, but I'd obviously > > like to go live with the latest version unless there is a strong technical > > reason otherwise. > > FYI, 9.9 is the current Extended Support Version (ESV). If you're > looking for a version of BIND with a long period of maintenance, there > will be ongoing 9.9.x, 9.9.x+1 etc. releases and interim patches if needed. > > http://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/
I mentioned this earlier, but I have been seeing the very large increases in process size with Bind 9.9.5-P1 and 9.9.6b1. I have just installed 9.10.1rc2 on one of our secondary name servers. In time I will be able to see if 9.10.1rc2 shows a bigger increase in process size than 9.9.5-P1 did. I have restarted 9.9.6b1 with max-cache-size 30M on our primary server. Both experiments will take some time before I can tell what is happening. Tom Schulz Applied Dynamics Intl. sch...@adi.com _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users