Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:31:46 +0900 From: Rob <stopspam@users.sourceforge.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Memory used by caching name server? Message-ID: <40C06BB2.8090007@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <20040604140251.T61943@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> References: <40C01A55.6070809@users.sourceforge.net> <40C02E22.4050205@users.sourceforge.net> <20040604140251.T61943@gaff.hhhr.ision.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Olaf Hoyer wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Rob wrote: > > >>No change at all in memory usage. If named keeps its cache in memory, >>why do I not see any changes of available swap space when starting named? >> >>Or does named claim memory on the fly, as it is caching? >>If so, how can I find out what is the maximum it can claim on my machine? > > > > Hi! > > named claims memory on the fly. > On Solaris, I have bind 8 seen claiming about 800MB RAM for its caching > database, being the resolver for the machine that creates from http-logs > colorful pictures and other fancy things... Waaauw, that sounds rather dangerous to me. I have a caching nameserver running on an old Pentium-I with 32 Mb of ram (48 Mb swap). I am still using it in a testing enviroment, moderately using the named's cache. So far total memory usage by the OS is very low (swap is hardly used). I wonder if named would eat up all the ram in a production enviroment. Can't imagine that, actually. Nowhere I have seen warnings against such disaster. But then there is this option for the named configuration file, that limits the cache memory usage..... Elsewhere, I have read that named uses 1 Mb maximum by default. But I read that in an out-dated document. I assume meanwhile things have changed/improved. Rob.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40C06BB2.8090007>