Thanks for getting back with the "solution".
You might want to give that bugzilla entry a jolt, it's been stagnating since last year. :-)
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Boris Epstein" <borepstein@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January, 2015 18:47:17
> Subject: Re: DJBDNS: very weird dnscache issue
> Lucian,
>
> So far here is the best we could find out:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084747
>
> Testing to see if this is the solution; so far it seems to be.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Boris.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Nux! <nux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 January, 2015 15:53:28
>> > Subject: 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@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
