> On May 21, 2025, at 3:38 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Philip Prindeville via bind-users"
>> To: "bind-users"
>> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 5:20:59 PM
>> Subject: Significant memory usage
>
>> What I’ve noticed is that at startup I’m using about 33K pages
> On Jun 8, 2025, at 3:07 PM, Philip Prindeville via bind-users
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 21, 2025, at 3:38 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Philip Prindeville via bind-users"
>>> To: "bind-users"
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 5:20:59 PM
>>> Subject: Sig
> On May 21, 2025, at 3:38 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Philip Prindeville via bind-users"
>> To: "bind-users"
>> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 5:20:59 PM
>> Subject: Significant memory usage
>
>> What I’ve noticed is that at startup I’m using about 33K pages
Does the named report proper max-cache-size into the log when starting?
Something like:
'max-cache-
size 90%' - setting to 86522MB (out of 96136MB)
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel
obligated to reply outside your
Working on it:
https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/26721
Here’s my statistics-channel output:
named-stats.xml
Description: XML document
> On May 18, 2025, at 10:30 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> Well, you’ve provided basically nothing as leads, so it is hard to tell
> what’s going on w
This is on an embedded system, i.e. a 4-core AMD64 low-power machine with 16GB
of memory, that uses 2GB of that as a tmpfs.
90% would cripple the system. I’m going to try 10% (after all, it’s only doing
name service for 200 machines, maybe 450 RRs, and more than have of the
machines are IoTs t
The 1.7GB is what the system is reporting. That’s why I asked as I’ve seen
OpenWRT reporting weird or no values before.
171MB cache is little on a low side and negative effects from overmem LRU
cleaning will going to hurt the performance.
I would suggest to set a fixed size for the cache - 1.6G
Jun 8 22:22:10 OpenWrt named[15142]: /etc/bind/named.conf:42: expected integer
and optional unit or percent near '1638MB'
> On Jun 8, 2025, at 10:17 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> Yes, there's no math involved, it just honors the limit.
>
> FTR you can also say:
>
> max-cache-size 2GB;
>
> You
I read:
https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9.20.9/reference.html#namedconf-statement-max-cache-size
and it doesn’t explain the notation for .
> On Jun 8, 2025, at 10:39 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> What If you actually read the manual that I sent you - syntax of sizeval is
> explained there.
>
Yes, there's no math involved, it just honors the limit.
FTR you can also say:
max-cache-size 2GB;
You don't have to specify it to the last byte.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
ond...@isc.org
My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel
obligated to reply outsi
It does have the effect.
Also there’s BIND 9 ARM at https://bind9.readthedocs.io/en/v9.20.9/
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
My working hours and your working hours may be differentw . Please do not feel
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> On 9. 6. 2025, at 6:20, Philip Prinde
Odd. I tried:
max-cache-size 1717986918;
and restarted and I don’t see anything in the logs about it. But I did when I
used a percentage.
> On Jun 8, 2025, at 10:02 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> The 1.7GB is what the system is reporting. That’s why I asked as I’ve seen
> OpenWRT repo
I’ll try to get a smoking gun.
How do you configure an explicit number of bytes with max-cache-size?
The manpage says:
max-cache-size ( default | unlimited | | );
but doesn’t explain the syntax of “sizeval”.
I tried “1638M” but that doesn’t seem to have an effect.
> On Jun 8, 2025, at 10
What If you actually read the manual that I sent you - syntax of sizeval is
explained there.
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel
obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
> On 9. 6. 2025, at 6:34, Philip Prindevi
I don't see anything wrong with the memory in the attached file - 13MB doesn't
seem to be causing any havoc.
And it roughly matches what I am seeing here with fresh named instance on
64-bit machine:
$ smem -P name[d]
PID User Command Swap USS PSS RSS
Maybe GB is the only unit it groks.
Jun 8 22:31:52 OpenWrt named[19145]: /etc/bind/named.conf:42: expected integer
and optional unit or percent near ‘1536MB’
Nope:
Jun 8 22:32:48 OpenWrt named[19609]: /etc/bind/named.conf:43: expected integer
and optional unit or percent near ‘2GB'
> On
16 matches
Mail list logo
