Use BIND. How the times have changed. :-) PS: I'm also curious for a solution.. for when djbnostalgia hits me. Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Boris Epstein" <borepstein at gmail.com> > To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2015 15:53:28 > Subject: [CentOS] DJBDNS: very weird dnscache issue > Hello all, > > We have put a DNS server online running DJBDNS v1.06 > (ndjbdns-1.06-1.el6.x86_64) on a 64-bit CentOS 6.6 server. We have done > some limited testing on the machine which it passed - i.e., dnscache was > talking to tinydns, the queries went through fine, etc. > > As soon as we put it online subjecting it to live load the following > happened: > > 1) Within a short time period (about a minute) the dnscache process reached > the CPU utilisation level of 100%. > > 2) The process would then die reporting the following message to the log: > > dnscache: BUG: out of in progress slots > > NOTE: Random sampling indicates that at no point sampled did the load > exceed 200 requests per second. In tests conducted earlier the DNS server > successfully demonstrated speeds in tens of thousands of requests per > second. > > We then proceeded to edit the following parameters in the dnscache.conf as > they seemed to be the only ones that seemed relevant: DATALIMIT and > CACHESIZE. They are described as limints (in bytes) on the total data > memory allocation and cache, default values are 80000000 and 50000000 > respectively. > > Playing with these demonstrated some highly counterintuitive results: > > 1) Setting the values lower (say, an order of magnitude lower) made the > dnscache process run longer. > > 2) Shortening the relative gap between the two values (for instance, > setting DATALIMIT at 52000 and CACHE at 50000) made it run for about an > hour vs about 1 minute, load seeming to be about the same. > > 3) Running it with DATALIMIT not set was possible though it eventually > failed anyways. > > 4) Running it with CACHESIZE not set was not possible at all. > > So the issue is currently still not resolved and we are stuck. > > Any advice will be much appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Boris. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos