* Ruediger Meier <sweet_...@gmx.de> [04-06-16 16:03]:
> On Wednesday 06 April 2016, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > * Ruediger Meier <sweet_...@gmx.de> [04-06-16 13:07]:
> > > On Wednesday 06 April 2016, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > > > * Ruediger Meier <sweet_...@gmx.de> [04-06-16 10:45]:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since a few weeks I see nscd running crazy on 13.1, like this
> > > > >
> > > > > USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU  %MEM     TIME+
> > > > > COMMAND nscd      20   0 5265008 1.626g    652 S 0.000 5.185
> > > > > 0:30.32 nscd
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess 1.6G would be enough to cache all existing zones
> > > > > worldwide. What could be the problem?
> > > >
> > > > odd, mine has been up 261 days and:
> > >
> > > Could you show me your stats? I wonder if you have some reasonable
> > > cache hit rates.
> > > $ nscd -g
> >
> > nscd configuration:
> >
> >               0  server debug level
> >  42d  3h 27m 41s  server runtime
> 
> So it was restarted during uptime. Because of libc update, or crash?

must have been libc update, I don't recall now, but not crash or uptime
would be less/reset ...
 
> > passwd cache:
> >               [...]
> >               3  cache hits on positive entries
> >               0% cache hit rate
> 
> > group cache:
> >               [...]
> >              13  cache hits on positive entries
> >               0% cache hit rate
> >
> > hosts cache:
> >               [...]
> >             692  cache hits on positive entries
> >               5% cache hit rate
> 
> > services cache:
> >               [...]
> >               1  cache hits on positive entries
> >               3  cache hits on negative entries
> >               0% cache hit rate
> 
> >
> > netgroup cache:
> >               [...]
> >               0  cache hits on positive entries
> >               0% cache hit rate
> 
> 
> Only the host cache has at least 5% cache hit rate. Better than nothing? 
> Absolute just 692 times within 42 days a minor speed-up to safe a few 
> milliseconds. I wonder if it's really worth to run that buggy nscd at 
> all. On my machines I've found none with a cache hit rate more than 0%, 
> like Carlos' machine.
> 
> BTW the host cache is IMO the most dangerous one because it caches for 
> 600s per default and AFAIR ignores the domain specific TTL which comes 
> from the name server. For example Google domains have usually only 300s 
> TTL and I guess for a good reason (failover setup, whatever).
> 
> Other distros (Ubuntu) are using a real local DNS caching server on each 
> machine which respects the DNS protocol. If you have one caching DNS 
> server in your LAN (any usual router does that) then you probaly don't 
> need neither nscd nor local DNS server.

and I do have a router inline ...  Server is mostly photographs and mail.

-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan       Plainfield, Indiana, USA          @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.org    openSUSE Community Member    facebook/ptilopteri
http://wahoo.no-ip.org        Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://linuxcounter.net
_______________________________________________
Evergreen mailing list
Evergreen@lists.rosenauer.org
http://lists.rosenauer.org/mailman/listinfo/evergreen

Reply via email to