On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 06:47:45PM +0100, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > > Have you *measured* the hit rate of your current BIND resolvers > > > with different cache sizes? How many queries per second are you > > > trying to support? > > > > We do about 3,000 queries/second typically. I haven't measured query > > -rates vs cache sizes. We've had max-cache-size set to 3GB for a long > > time, but the process never exceeded 2GB until recent crashes prompted > > recompilation as 64-bit. > > We do around 5500 q/s at 85% cache hit rate with a CNS process of just > under one Gigabyte. This is not BIND but the statistics might still be > relevant.
Thanks, good to know. Looking at a recent snapshot, and if I'm interpreting the bind stats correctly, I'm getting a similar cache hit rate (87%). > If you feel that more memory is a worthwhile use of resources then by > all means go for it. Personally I wouldn't consider it until my hit > rate dropped to significantly less than 70%. However, the hit rate is > of course dependent on your customers and their query profile, and it > is entirely possible that our two cases are significantly different > (mine is from the perspective of a commercial ISP). We have gobs of unused memory , so .. I'm not sure how different our profile is (university vs commercial ISP). But the research project which is querying a very diverse set of names that may not be typically queried will probably affect the cache hit rate. --Shumon. _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
