At Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:53:31 -0700, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> >> 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? Good question, I wonder the same thing:-) I don't remember the original plan, but I guess it was actually planned to be deprecated but it has just been forgotten or left as a lower priority thing since then. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ 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
