mem sizing for local vs. cached
Kevin Darcy
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Tue Nov 21 23:28:00 UTC 2000
Mark.Andrews at nominum.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > 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.
Of course, if host-statistics are enabled, then this blows the estimates out
of the water.
Offhand, does anyone know if host-statistics add anything to
*authoritative* data?
- Kevin
More information about the bind-users
mailing list