On 06/04/2012 11:36, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:14:06 +0000,
> Dan Mason <danma...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>> cleaning interval has been effectively no-op since BIND 9.5. Tweaking
>>> it won't improve performance, although it shouldn't cause a bad effect
>>> either.
>>
>> If your cache is too small the CPU will peg when the cleaning-interval goes.
>> Maybe that's changed but the behavior still exists in the 9.7 branch.
>> Setting your cache size really depends on your query load. On a resolver
>> doing 15,000/qps having a cache of 256M will cause a problem during the
>> cleaning-interval whereas if it's 2G you won't notice the interval at all.
>> Also on a busy resolver expect BIND to use about twice as much as where you
>> set your limits.
>
> Hmm, looking into the code again, I realized my memory was slightly
> incorrect: "cleaning interval has been effectively no-op since BIND
> 9.5" should have been "cleaning interval has been effectively
> meaningless and therefore disabled by default since BIND 9.5", and if
> you explicitly enable it by setting cleaning-interval to a non 0
> value, it will still do meaningless but expensive operations.
>
> So, in conclusion, my main point should still stand: "Tweaking it
> (cleaning-interval) won't improve performance". And, it could
> actually do harm.
Thanks, I learned something today! But that sort of prompts the question
in my mind, why does the option still exist?
Doug
--
If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
