mem sizing for local vs. cached

[Mark.Andrews at nominum.com]

> 
> 
> > Subject:      Re: Memory issue?
> > Date:         09/14/200
> > Author:       Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
> >
> > If you're using BIND8, each zone needs a zoneinfo struct that occupies
> > ~500 bytes (in round figures). On top of that memory is needed for the
> > resource records in each zone.
> >
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Subject:      Re: BIND 8 memory leak symptoms
> > Date:         11/19/2000
> > Author:       Mark.Andrews <Mark.Andrews at nominum.com>
> >
> > It's unique recursive queries that make caches grow.
> >
> > Well every record has 32 bytes of overhead.  Every label has
> > 20 bytes of overhead.  Each zone uses 324 bytes.  Then there
> > are the hash tables.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Do I apply same mem sizing for housekeeping to local (auth) RR as
> cached RR? Currently I use the filesize to estimate mem requirement
> for RR themselves, is that ok?  Not trying to split hairs, we have
> one server that's on the skinny side.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
	The sizes were taken from BIND 8.2.2-P7 on a BSDI 3.1 box.
	The values are sizeof(struct databuf) - 4,
	sizeof(struct namebuf) - 4 and sizeof(struct zoneinfo).

	The "-4"s are because the end of the structure is dynamically
	allocated array containing the rdata and label respectively.

	Yes theses values apply regardless of whether it is authoritative
	data or cached data.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc.
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at nominum.com