From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 4 08:19:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C3316A4CE for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auk1.snu.ac.kr (auk1.snu.ac.kr [147.46.100.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6520C43D2D for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 08:19:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stopspam@users.sourceforge.net) Received: from [147.46.44.181] (stopspam@users.sourceforge.net) by auk1.snu.ac.kr (Terrace Internet Messaging Server) with ESMTP id 2004060423:58:19:821951.24301.2540841904 for ; Fri, 04 Jun 2004 23:58:19 +0900 (KST) Message-ID: <40C092E4.2070605@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 00:19:00 +0900 From: Rob User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040507 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <40C01A55.6070809@users.sourceforge.net> <40C02E22.4050205@users.sourceforge.net> <40C06BB2.8090007@users.sourceforge.net> <20040604163133.W61943@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> In-Reply-To: <20040604163133.W61943@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TERRACE-SPAMMARK: NO (SR:0.41) (by Terrace) Subject: Re: Memory used by caching name server? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:19:02 -0000 Olaf Hoyer wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Rob wrote: > > >>>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..... >> > > Well, some colleagues have some Machines with 512MB RAM running, also > bind 9, but with no given limit on size. They serve as resolvers to > several thousands of dedicated servers (customers servers) and use more > than 200MB RAM without being limited. > > The example on Solaris is in a scenarion where a dedicated host has to > chew more than 30 GB http logs a day, does reverse lookups and then does > some statistics on them, so the named has to look up pretty much domain > names... > > This special host has more than 10 CPU in it, so you can imagine the > power needed... > > On other hosts, where I also run named as caching resolver, I have about > 3-4 MB memory footprint for normal use... How do you actually figure out how much memory is consumed by named? I still have no idea how to do that, so I have no idea how much my poor old Pentium-I is suffering from the named cache.... Knowing how to do that, would help me already a little further. Regards, Rob.