Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:40:39 +0100
From:      Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>
To:        =?UTF-8?B?SklOTUVJIFRhdHV5YSAvIOelnuaYjumBlOWTiQ==?= <Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
Cc:        freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, bind-users@isc.org
Subject:   Re: max-cache-size doesn't work with 9.5.0b1
Message-ID:  <479F02A7.9020607@fsn.hu>
In-Reply-To: <m2k5ltke09.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
References:  <475B0F3E.5070100@fsn.hu>	 <m2lk6g71bc.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>	 <479DFE74.8030004@fsn.hu> <m2k5ltke09.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2008.01.28. 19:21, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:10:28 +0100,
> Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> wrote:
>
>   
>>> If you have time, could you rebuild named as follows
>>>
>>> % STD_CDEFINES='-DLRU_DEBUG' ./configure; make
>>>
>>> and try again?  This won't solve the problem, but provide more
>>> detailed log messages tracking the memory usage of the cache.  Make
>>> sure threads are disabled (this debug feature is currently
>>> thread-unsafe and trigger an assertion failure when used with multiple
>>> threads).
>>>   
>>>       
>> Without threading I don't see this effect, the memory usage stops at a 
>> sane limit and it's size can be affected by setting the max-cache-size 
>> option.
>>
>> I don't think you would gain anything usable with that, am I right?
>>     
>
> Right.  Can you try a simpler patch that focuses on the memory usage
> status and works with threads?  If so, I'll write one and send it to
> you.
>   
Of course. The machines are diskless, so writing larger log files 
directly is not an easy task. (syslog is ok)

Thanks.

ps: I have an other problem. I've recently switched from a last year 
6-STABLE to 7-STABLE and got pretty bad results on the same machine with 
the same bind (9.4).
The graphs are here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/nagy.attila/20080129Fbsd6vs7Bind

The interesting part (from when the comments are valid) starts at around 
the half of the picture. You can see that on FreeBSD 6, the CPU load is 
pretty much good, but on 7, both the userspace and the kernelspace 
activity grows significantly.
I've used libthr on 6, and it is the default on 7 too. bind is threaded.
I use ISC_INTERNAL_MALLOC, but the effect is the same without it.

I've cc-ed the freebsd-performance, I guess there are several other ppl, 
who is interested in bind performance on this OS.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?479F02A7.9020607>