Thanks for your input! This is an ISP setup, of course, designed to withstand just about anything we have had issues with in the past.
We have used PowerDNS a while ago and it was quite speedy, but I think Unbund outperforms just about anything. Could it perhaps be more efficient regarding cache management as well? I have seen configurations in the thread with many gigabytes of cache, so how does it work for you all? Skickat från min iPhone 13 apr 2013 kl. 08:21 skrev "Daisuke HIGASHI" <[email protected]>: > Hi Anders, > > Generally larger cache memory can improve latency (cache hit ratio) > because it can keep more records in cache. I'm not certain whether too > much memory introduce something harmful or not (except power > consumption or failure rate of memory modules). > > But according to my test, around 3-4GBs memory per one Unbound cache > server seems to be enough (e.g. rrset-cache-size: 2g, msg-cache-size: > 1g) even if in large ISP environment. More memory won't improve cache > hit ratio meaningfully. PowerDNS recursor doc gives similar suggestion > [1]. > > Note that Unbound will consume more memory than you specified due to > malloc() overhead [2] and we will need more cache memory as > DNSSEC-signed zone is deployed more widely. > > [1] http://doc.powerdns.com/html/recursor-performance.html > "Cache hit rate does not improve meaningfully beyond 4 million > max-cache-entries per thread…. " > [2] http://www.unbound.net/documentation/howto_optimise.html > > -- > Daisuke HIGASHI <[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
