Dear colleagues, today I've got problem with named exiting on signal 11. Yes, I've searched archives and found that POKED TIMER is a problem in our threads. Has anyone faced this problem and workarounded it? Or may be even fixed it? Is there anywhere detailed description of the problem? Jun 19 06:00:58 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** Jun 19 06:28:40 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** Jun 19 06:49:54 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** Jun 19 07:18:19 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** Jun 19 07:18:38 <kern.info> ns kernel: pid 44534 (named), uid 53: exited on signal 11 -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:> Dear colleagues, > > today I've got problem with named exiting on signal 11. Yes, I've searched > archives and found that POKED TIMER is a problem in our threads. > > Has anyone faced this problem and workarounded it? Or may be even fixed it? > Is there anywhere detailed description of the problem? > > Jun 19 06:00:58 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** > Jun 19 06:28:40 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** > Jun 19 06:49:54 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** > Jun 19 07:18:19 <daemon.warn> ns named[44534]: *** POKED TIMER *** > Jun 19 07:18:38 <kern.info> ns kernel: pid 44534 (named), uid 53: exited on signal 11 >You haven't stated what version of FreeBSD or named you are using. If you're using FreeBSD old enough so that your named is 9.3.0, then you should upgrade to 5-stable, which will as a by product upgrade named to 9.3.1 which has a lot of the threading issues solved. hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 11:02:57AM +0200, Doug Barton wrote: D> Thanks for clarifying guys. Are either of you in a position to upgrade to D> -stable and see if the problem persists? Does STABLE have an other version of BIND? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 11:02:57AM +0200, Doug Barton wrote: > D> Thanks for clarifying guys. Are either of you in a position to upgrade to > D> -stable and see if the problem persists? > > Does STABLE have an other version of BIND? >Not newer than 5.4, no, but it does have other things fixed. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection