Limiting memory usage
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Thu Apr 25 21:16:09 UTC 2002
> bert hubert <ahu at ds9a.nl> wrote:
> > In article <aa5n2v$1hj at pub3.rc.vix.com>, phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:
>
> >> I don't think you can (in a reasonable way) limit a nameservers
> >> memory hunger. It's a function of the clients usage and TTL values
> >> set in the RR. Trying to enforce lower TTL will break the
> >> original RR-publishers suggestion.
>
> > DJBDNS dnscache does this just fine. You tell it how much memory it should
> > use and it uses exactly that, dropping old entries to store new ones.
>
>
> A nameserver is _supposed_ to cache data up to the time given
> in the original TTL. By silently truncationg the cache it breaks
> the function it's supposed to do.
A nameserver in supposed to cache a RRset *no longer* than
the ttl. It's quite alright (though it defeats the purpose
slightly) to remove the record early.
All versions of BIND have deleted records earlier than the
TTL (max-cache-ttl/MAX_CACHE_TTL). No nameserver should
blindly honour the received ttls.
BIND 9.2 has max-cache-size which causes RRsets to be
randomly removed from the cache once this limit is reached.
>
> But noone have ever accused djbdns to follow any standards (but db's )
It's not a error to timeout RRsets early. There are lots
of things I disagree about with djbdns but removing RRsets
early is not one of them.
Mark
> > Regards,
>
> > bert
>
> > --
> > http://www.PowerDNS.com/pdns Try our new database driven nameserver!
> > http://www.tk the dot in .tk
> > http://lartc.org Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HOWTO
>
>
> --
> Peter Håkanson
> IPSec Sverige (At the Riverside of Gothenburg, home of Volvo)
> Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out.
> Remove "icke-reklam" and it works.
>
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org
More information about the bind-users
mailing list