RFC: Upgrade BIND version in RELENG_7 to BIND 9.6.x

[Chuck Swiger]

Hi--

On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
> in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
> upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.

+1

> I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS
> usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version
> in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9.6 from the
> ports and at minimum run /usr/local/sbin/named-checkconf to see if any
> errors are generated. Of course it would be that much more helpful if
> you could also evaluate BIND 9.6 in operation in your environment.

dns/bind-9.6 seems to work better for me than the 7-STABLE base version of BIND. [1]

No errors from named-checkconf.  "make test" (under /usr/ports/dns/bind96/work/bind-9.6-ESV-R3/bin/tests after running .../system/ifconfig.sh up) passed all of the tests; and normal operation serving zones and so forth also work fine.  One gripe is that stopping via rc script fails:

# grep named /etc/rc.conf
named_enable="YES"
named_program="/usr/local/sbin/named"

# /etc/rc.d/named stop
named not running? (check /var/run/named/pid).

...because of the "-t /var/named", probably.  Is there a symlink or something I can do to fix this?

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck

[1]: I did some comparisons, and it appears max-cache-size option wasn't being honored by base named (claims to be BIND 9.4.-ESV-R4) from:

FreeBSD example.com 7.4-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.4-PRERELEASE #1: Tue Dec 14 19:55:55 EST 2010

...whereas top showed that named from dns/bind-9.6 filled its cache under load until it reached the max-cache-size plus a chunk for the recursive clients, and then remained at a stable size afterwards.