On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote: > Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor, > but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making > sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will > help keep other DNS demands to a minimum.
From memory (sic) a caching name server for an ISP with 500,000 customers that has typically >10,000 customers online at busy times will grow to about 200M of RAM. Extrapolating from that I expect that 20M of RAM should be adequate for a caching name server for the type of load we are discussing. If the machine is upgraded to a decent amount of RAM (128M is nothing by today's standards and upgrading RAM is the cheapest upgrade possible) then the amount of RAM for a caching name server should not be an issue. > Other than that, yea, some kind of RAID solution would be cool for him. > I'd also look at making sure /var/log is on a seperate drive from > /var/spool/mail. I saw an email that indicated that /swap was seperate > from /var/spool, but nothing about where the log files were located. > Not synching after evey write will help obviously, but I recall seeing > quite a benefit from seperate drive for /var/log and /var/spool. My understanding of the discussion was that there was one drive for /var/spool (which is for the queue and /var/spool/mail) and another drive for everything else. That should be fine, but getting some drives that are less than 3 years old would be a good idea... -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
