Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:03:48 +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: <47A03D74.8040401@fsn.hu> In-Reply-To: <m24pcwt5b7.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> <479F02A7.9020607@fsn.hu> <m24pcwt5b7.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2008.01.30. 3:28, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > At Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:40:39 +0100, > Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> wrote: > > >>>> 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) >> > > Okay, please use the attached patch (applicable to 9.5.0b1, and also > to 9.5.0b2 when it's published). Build it with: > % STD_CDEFINES='-DLRU_DEBUG2=2' ./configure --enable-threads > (or set STD_CDEFINES using setenv if you use a csh variant) > Will try, 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 have no idea about why this happened at the moment. Do both server > handle the same level of query rate? (I'm also curious what happened > in the first half of the graphs for both cases). > Exactly the same (a per packet load balancer is in front of them). Even the machines are the same. I've replaced the pictures, the previous ones included some unintended reboot-n-try stuff. > >> 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. >> > > This shouldn't matter because ISC_INTERNAL_MALLOC is enabled by > default as of 9.4. > Ouch, I didn't know this. Thanks for the clarification.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47A03D74.8040401>