Named resulting in OOM condition

[Rahul Sundaram]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:04:53 +0200, Hans Kristian Rosbach
<hk at isphuset.no> wrote:
> We are running a simple caching named process on a separate
> computer here. Every two weeks it needs to be rebooted due
> to running out of memory. It can survive for a while further
> on swap, but that slows things down terribly.
> 
> After restarting named the memory is still in use according
> to 'free':
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers
> cached
> Mem:        775664     760064      15600          0        736
> 11884
> -/+ buffers/cache:     747444      28220
> Swap:      1566296       9108    1557188
> 
> But according to ps all processes use a 0.0-0.6% ram. (ps -Ae vx)
> 
> from slabinfo I got the following interesting lines:
> biovec-(256)         256    256   3072    2    2 : tunables   24   12
> 0 : slabdata    128    128      0
> biovec-128           256    260   1536    5    2 : tunables   24   12
> 0 : slabdata     52     52      0
> biovec-64            256    260    768    5    1 : tunables   54   27
> 0 : slabdata     52     52      0
> biovec-16            256    260    192   20    1 : tunables  120   60
> 0 : slabdata     13     13      0
> biovec-4             256    305     64   61    1 : tunables  120   60
> 0 : slabdata      5      5      0
> biovec-1          6341638 6342238     16  226    1 : tunables  120
> 60    0 : slabdata  28063  28063      0
> bio               6341638 6341798     96   41    1 : tunables  120
> 60    0 : slabdata 154678 154678      0
> 
> Seems like bio is taking up nearly all the memory, what can cause this?
> Any way to force it to go away? =)
> 
> This problem has been there for a long time, we have this problem on
> all our nameservers but always thought it was a bug due to us reloading
> a huge config every half hour. 2GB ram makes those boxes run for a few
> months before they need a reboot.
> 
> But this caching nameserver should not be such a special case, and since
> it caches all our RBL queries it seems to run out of memory much faster.
> 
> This problem has followed us atleast since FC2-test2, and now FC3.
> I just upgraded to bind-9.2.5-1, but I seriously doubt that it will have
> any significant effect.
> 
> Ideas?
> 

file a bug report in bugzilla.redhat.com


-- 
Regards,
Rahul Sundaram