On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Craig Sanders wrote:
FYI, doesn't look like the memory leaks have been fixed:
# ps v -Cnamed
PID TTY STAT TIME MAJFL TRS DRS RSS %MEM COMMAND
6799 ?S 0:00111 232 336175 200968 39.1 /usr/sbin/named -u bind
6801 ?S 0:00 0 232
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:06:06AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Craig Sanders wrote:
FYI, doesn't look like the memory leaks have been fixed:
# ps v -Cnamed
PID TTY STAT TIME MAJFL TRS DRS RSS%MEM COMMAND
6799 ? S 0:00 111 232 336175 200968 39.1
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Craig Sanders wrote:
FYI, doesn't look like the memory leaks have been fixed:
# ps v -Cnamed
PID TTY STAT TIME MAJFL TRS DRS RSS %MEM COMMAND
6799 ?S 0:00111 232 336175 200968 39.1 /usr/sbin/named -u bind
6801 ?S 0:00 0 232
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 11:06:06AM -0800, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Craig Sanders wrote:
FYI, doesn't look like the memory leaks have been fixed:
# ps v -Cnamed
PID TTY STAT TIME MAJFL TRS DRS RSS%MEM COMMAND
6799 ? S 0:00 111 232 336175 200968 39.1
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:46:14PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
the main thing i'm worried about is that bind9 had enormous memory leaks when
i tried 9.0 several months ago. i hope they're fixed now.
FYI, doesn't look like the memory leaks have been fixed:
# ps v -Cnamed
PID TTY STAT TIME
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:46:14PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
the main thing i'm worried about is that bind9 had enormous memory leaks when
i tried 9.0 several months ago. i hope they're fixed now.
FYI, doesn't look like the memory leaks have been fixed:
# ps v -Cnamed
PID TTY STAT TIME
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:04:01AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
incompatibilities - no problem if you only have a few zonefiles that
need editing, but a major PITA if you have hundreds.
perl -i ?
--
Ted Deppner
http://www.psyber.com/~ted/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:09:59PM +0100,
Tobias Kuhrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
bind9 is also supporting ACL and other new features. so it is
a good idea to use bind9.x.x instead of bind8.x.x
Bind9 is *much* slower
.
Wayne Gretzky
-Original Message-
From: Craig Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 7:04 PM
To: Sonny Kupka
Cc: Jeff S Wheeler; debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: New BIND 4 8 Vulnerabilities
On Tue, Nov
My BIND 8 zone files are working perfectly. We do have TTL values on
every RR in every zone, though. Perhaps that was your difficulty? I
believe I made that change when we upgraded from 4.x to 8.x ages ago.
If there is no such script and you have difficulty with your zonefiles,
let me know the
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:04:01AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
incompatibilities - no problem if you only have a few zonefiles that
need editing, but a major PITA if you have hundreds.
perl -i ?
--
Ted Deppner
http://www.psyber.com/~ted/
See ISC.ORG for information on new BIND vulnerabilities. Current bind
package in woody is 8.3.3, which is an affected version. Patches are
not available yet, it seems.
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/bind-security.html
--
Jeff S Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Development
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed it
and haven't looked back..
The file format was the same from 8.3.* to 9.2.1 I didn't have to do anything..
---
Sonny
At 01:08 PM 11/12/2002 -0500, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
See ISC.ORG for
Nachricht-
Von: Sonny Kupka [mailto:sonny;nothnbut.net]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. November 2002 19:54
An: Jeff S Wheeler; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: New BIND 4 8 Vulnerabilities
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed it
and haven't
I've taken Sonny's suggestion and upgraded to the bind9 package.
Initially I thought I had a serious problem, as named was not answering
any queries, however it seems to have fixed itself. Ordinarily that
would spook me, but in this situation I think I'd rather have spooky
software than
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:51PM -0600, Sonny Kupka wrote:
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed
it and haven't looked back..
The file format was the same from 8.3.* to 9.2.1 I didn't have to do
anything..
is this fully
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:04:01AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:51PM -0600, Sonny Kupka wrote:
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed
it and haven't looked back..
The file format was the same from
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:35:44AM +0100, gravity wrote:
I have a very straight setup but upgrading to bind 9 was done in under
4 seconds. (approx 50 domains). no troubles so far.
yep, bind 9.2.x seems a lot better than 9.0 or 9.1.
it seems to use more memory than bind8.
i'm doing a
I have a very straight setup but upgrading to bind 9 was done in under
4 seconds. (approx 50 domains). no troubles so far.
yep, bind 9.2.x seems a lot better than 9.0 or 9.1.
it seems to use more memory than bind8.
i'm doing a trial upgrade (on another server by copying over zone
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New BIND 4 8 Vulnerabilities
I have a very straight setup but upgrading to bind 9 was done in
under 4 seconds. (approx 50 domains). no troubles so far.
yep, bind 9.2.x seems a lot better than 9.0 or 9.1.
it seems to use more memory than bind8.
i'm
Only gotcha I remember running into is for some reason when I did an
uninstall bind 8.* / install bind 9.2.1
For some reason there where 2 bind scripts in /etc/init.d/ one named bind
and one bind9 it messed with named running right so I killed bind script
and left the /etc/init.d/bind9
As
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:26:25PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
We're still on named 8.3.3-REL-NOESW (currently in stable).
Is it much of a headache to upgrade to 9.2.x? Any particular procedure
or guide you followed that could be read somewhere?
it's pretty straight-forward. nowhere near the
See ISC.ORG for information on new BIND vulnerabilities. Current bind
package in woody is 8.3.3, which is an affected version. Patches are
not available yet, it seems.
http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/bind-security.html
--
Jeff S Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Software Development
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed it
and haven't looked back..
The file format was the same from 8.3.* to 9.2.1 I didn't have to do anything..
---
Sonny
At 01:08 PM 11/12/2002 -0500, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
See ISC.ORG for information on
Nachricht-
Von: Sonny Kupka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. November 2002 19:54
An: Jeff S Wheeler; debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Betreff: Re: New BIND 4 8 Vulnerabilities
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed
I've taken Sonny's suggestion and upgraded to the bind9 package.
Initially I thought I had a serious problem, as named was not answering
any queries, however it seems to have fixed itself. Ordinarily that
would spook me, but in this situation I think I'd rather have spooky
software than
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:51PM -0600, Sonny Kupka wrote:
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed
it and haven't looked back..
The file format was the same from 8.3.* to 9.2.1 I didn't have to do
anything..
is this fully
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:04:01AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:53:51PM -0600, Sonny Kupka wrote:
Why not use Bind 9.2.1..
It's in woody.. When I came over from Slackware to Debian I installed
it and haven't looked back..
The file format was the same from
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:35:44AM +0100, gravity wrote:
I have a very straight setup but upgrading to bind 9 was done in under
4 seconds. (approx 50 domains). no troubles so far.
yep, bind 9.2.x seems a lot better than 9.0 or 9.1.
it seems to use more memory than bind8.
i'm doing a
I have a very straight setup but upgrading to bind 9 was done in under
4 seconds. (approx 50 domains). no troubles so far.
yep, bind 9.2.x seems a lot better than 9.0 or 9.1.
it seems to use more memory than bind8.
i'm doing a trial upgrade (on another server by copying over zone
@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: New BIND 4 8 Vulnerabilities
I have a very straight setup but upgrading to bind 9 was done in
under 4 seconds. (approx 50 domains). no troubles so far.
yep, bind 9.2.x seems a lot better than 9.0 or 9.1.
it seems to use more memory than bind8
Only gotcha I remember running into is for some reason when I did an
uninstall bind 8.* / install bind 9.2.1
For some reason there where 2 bind scripts in /etc/init.d/ one named bind
and one bind9 it messed with named running right so I killed bind script
and left the /etc/init.d/bind9
As
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:26:25PM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
We're still on named 8.3.3-REL-NOESW (currently in stable).
Is it much of a headache to upgrade to 9.2.x? Any particular procedure
or guide you followed that could be read somewhere?
it's pretty straight-forward. nowhere near the
33 matches
Mail list logo
