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... HTH Olaf -- Olaf Hoyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fuerchterliche Erlebniss geben zu raten, ob der, welcher sie erlebt, nicht etwas Fuerchterliches ist. (Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Boese) _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"