LinuxSA Mailing list archives

  From: Mark Newton <newton@atdot.dotat.org>
  To  : Alan Kennington <akenning@dog.topology.org>
  Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:11:54 +1030

Re: uh oh! -- BIND's no good again - warning, warning

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:24:10AM +1030, Alan Kennington wrote:

 > On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:02:58PM +1030, Michael Kratz wrote:
 > > Now, anyone, how hard is it to switch from BIND 8.2.3 to BIND 9.1??
 > > is it as simple as this operation was ie. rpm upgrade
 > 
 > Here is my tale of woe.
 > Thinking that I would try to be better than average,
 > I downloaded and tried to build version 9.1.0.

Keep in mind that BIND 9 is still under development, and is not recommended
for production use.  You should consider it to be "beta" software.

 > But....
 > 1.	It ran out of virtual memory while compiling on my
 > 	old 486. It needed 13.5 MByyes while compiling.
 > 	So I have to kill off half my processes.
 
You don't have enough swap, Alan.  It's not unusual at all for gcc to
eat 20 Mbytes or more while compiling large source files;  perhaps you
should be using another system as a build box and installing the binaries
on your 486.

 > 	It also took over an hour to build.

3 minutes on my Pentium-III 866 :-)

 > 2.	While installing, it overfilled my disk.

How much disk space do you have?  I have a compiled tree from BIND8.x
here which occupies 40 Mbytes of space, so again, this is kinda normal.

 > 3.	There were two bugs in the 9.1. software - actually just
 > 	incompatibilities with RedHat 5.2.
 > 	So I had to edit two bind source files.
 
The release notes say it has been tesed on Redhat 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 and
7.0.  

5.2 is not currently supported by the build.  Did you send patches to
ISC so that BIND 9.1.1 will build without problems?

 > 4.	When I ran the final named binary, it couldn't understand
 > 	any of my config files. I wanted a TTL parameter, and
 > 	it didn't recognize half the things in /etc/named.conf.