On 2016-04-06 22:02, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 April 2016, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

>> 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.

Yes, I wonder if it is worth it running nscd at all.

> 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.

That's my case, I use dnsmasq or bind on all my machines. Some years I
remember to configure nscd to not cache host entries. Long ago I tried
not starting nscd, I could not figure out if it was good or bad.

In this laptop I have:

        enable-cache            hosts           no

but the machine I posted previously has it to yes. I have now set it
to no.

Cheers / Saludos,

                Carlos E. R.

  (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith))

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Evergreen mailing list

Reply via email to