max-cache-size (was: no subject)
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
Jinmei_Tatuya at isc.org
Tue Jun 24 18:30:51 UTC 2008
At Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:09:24 +0200,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at fantomas.sk> 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.
> ~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.
---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list