max-cache-size (was: no subject)

Matus UHLAR - fantomas uhlar at
Thu Jun 26 08:53:19 UTC 2008

> At Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:09:24 +0200,
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at> 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 use
> 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.

On 24.06.08 11:30, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > ~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.

I was mostly curious if I can expect 9.5 eat more or less of memory (is more
memory-effective) if I would not set finite max-cache-size under the same

I see that for getting some nice usage stats (that could help me to decide
how to configure max-cache-size) I have to upgrade to 9.5 even...
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at ;
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Saving Private Ryan...
Private Ryan exists. Overwrite? (Y/N)

More information about the bind-users mailing list