max-cache-size (was: no subject)
Matus UHLAR - fantomas
uhlar at fantomas.sk
Tue Jun 24 07:09:24 UTC 2008
> At Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:44:34 +0200,
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at fantomas.sk> wrote:
> > or bind will eat as
> > much of ram as possible, without expiring old entries?
On 23.06.08 12:17, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> It *could* be possible, but is not a realistic case. First, there's a
> default max-cache-size (32MB) as of 9.5. So the memory footprint is
> controlled by default.
> Second, expired entries are still examined and purged when a new cache
> entry is inserted. This cleanup is not based on full search of the
> cache DB, so it's still possible the memory footprint is still
> (seemingly) growing uncontrollably, if you explicitly set
> max-cache-size to unlimited and there are so many cache entries that
> have very large TTLs. In practice, however, I believe it should be
> rare enough that we don't have to worry about it.
Is this behaviour much different from bind 9.4? My caches (9.4.1p1) now use
~800MiB of RAM and it seems not to be increasing much over time.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
M$ Win's are shit, do not use it !
More information about the bind-users