[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
On 10-Apr-2002 at 15:30:57 Theo Zourzouvillys wrote:
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 3:51 pm, John Horne wrote:I'm a little lost with this. I assume the server is caching records it finds and is under 2MB? In order to cache more records I think I'd rather it used more memory. I could of course just configure BIND to use 2MB for caching :-)according to it's faq: It loads data from disk on demand, relying on the UNIX kernel's buffer cache to keep frequently used data in memory. In contrast, BIND needs to load all your zone files into memory before it answers any queries.
No, that's not what I meant. A name server will cache non-authoritative records. In that resepct our name servers start off using a (relatively) small amount of memory and increase in size as they are used - they are caching other DNS records. In that respect are you saying you have a (perhaps long-time) running name server which is using 2MB of memory? If so then, it doesn't seem to be caching a lot. With respect to the problem of bind waiting to load the zone, I know this was discussed on the bind mailing list for some time. I thought it had been redesigned at version 9 and didn't have to wait. I could well be wrong mind! John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ John Horne, University of Plymouth, UK Tel: +44 (0)1752 233914 E-mail: jhorne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key available from public key servers -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe.