tim at dnsconsultants.com
Tue Jun 24 20:10:04 UTC 2008
Slightly OT, but....
What is the behavior of bind when you specify max-cache-size on an already
running server then issue an rndc reconfig (supposing the current cache is
larger than the newly configured max-cache-size) ?
At 11:30 AM 6/24/2008, you wrote:
At Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:09:24 +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at fantomas.sk> wrote:
> > 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
It's totally different, although both behavior should be able to
control the memory footprint: the 9.5's way is just (much) more
efficient and lightweight than that of 9.4.
> ~800MiB of RAM and it seems not to be increasing much over time.
I'm not sure what you're indicating by this, but it's the expected
effect if you specify a finite max-cache-size, whether it's 9.4 or
9.5. Even if you don't specify it, that's also possible depending on
the query pattern, again, whether it's 9.4 or 9.5.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
More information about the bind-users