Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-18 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
At Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:36:31 -0200,
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães  wrote:

> > I can confirm bind 9.4 does run on an (IBM, not Intel) 486-SCL/2 with 16 MB.
> > That cpu can address no more than 16 MB.

> i have tried running 9.4.3 instead of 9.5.0-P2  and got odd results.

I suspect you should compare 9.4.3 with 9.5.1 (currently rc).  There
are many differences between pre-and-post P1/P2 versions.  So you may
be comparing an apple with an orange (even though you may already be
comparing different fruits by comparing 9.4 with 9.5, though).

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-17 Thread Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães



Peter Dambier escreveu:

I can confirm bind 9.4 does run on an (IBM, not Intel) 486-SCL/2 with 16 MB.
That cpu can address no more than 16 MB.

  


   i have tried running 9.4.3 instead of 9.5.0-P2  and got odd results.

   9.5.0-P2 right after start. Not a single query was made to it, just 
the daemon started:


r...@sede:/# pmap 26858
26858:   /usr/sbin/named -c /etc/bind/named.conf
[ ]
total 6644K
r...@sede:/#


   with 9.4.3, compiled the exact way 9.5.0-P2 was compiled, threads 
disabled, the very same config file.


r...@sede:/etc/init.d# pmap 27726
27726:   /usr/sbin/named -c /etc/bind/named.conf
[ . ]
total 8056K
r...@sede:/etc/init.d#


   So, at least here, 9.4.3 seems to use more memory than 9.5.0-P2.

   i was thinking that maybe the fact i'm running on a MIPS and with 
uclibc (instead of common glibc) plataform has some difference on 
results you got from x86 platform  do you think this could have some 
relation to the memory usage ???



r...@sede:/# cat /proc/cpuinfo
system type : Atheros AR7130 rev 2 (id:0xa8)
processor   : 0
cpu model   : MIPS 24K V7.4


   just for information, i'm also running squid on this RouterBoard 
with 32Mb of RAM. After some config file tweaks, i got a stable memory 
usage of about 5,5-6Mb. And that's quite stable even during peak times. 
Of course all in-memory caches are disabled as well as disk-caches. 
Squid is just running for blocking somethings and logging. Anyway, on 
the same machine i did the memory usage tests above, squid seems to be 
doing very well, stable memory use.



--


Atenciosamente / Sincerily,
Leonardo Rodrigues
Solutti Tecnologia
http://www.solutti.com.br

Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email
gertru...@solutti.com.br
My SPAMTRAP, do not email it




___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-15 Thread Sam Wilson
In article , sch...@adi.com (Thomas Schulz) 
wrote:

> In article ,
> =?UTF-8?B?TGVvbmFyZG8gUm9kcmlndWVzIE1hZ2FsaMOjZXM=?=
> wrote:
> >[base64 guff]
> 
> 
> You know, the above is not very usefull.  Can someone please fix the
> newsgroup gateway.

The content is below.  I forward it only because it's actually concrete 
result that might be useful to someone.

Sam



I just test bind 9.5.0-P2 and 9.5.1-rc1

Bind 9.5.0-P2 allocate over 2Gb per 10 minutes of work.
Bind 9.5.1 allocate 2Gb per 30 hours.

14.12.2008,  2:15, JINMEI Tatuya / 
<9E><98><8E><81><94>
<93><89> 
<81>():

> At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:50:52 -0200,
> Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhes  wrote:
>
>>i'm trying to run bind 9.5.0-P2 on a very low memory system.  
>> It's a
>> RouterBoard 450 with 32Mb RAM running OpenWRT.
>>
>> r...@sede:~# cat /proc/meminfo
>> MemTotal:29920 kB
>>
>>the problem is that bind seems to consume a LOT of memory ...  
>> well,
>> a lot for low memory devices, i never noticed that on machines with  
>> BS
>> of RAM.
>
> [snip]
>
>>question is  is there something i can do to low bind's memory
>> usage and successfully run it on those very low embedded devices ???
>
> Admittedly, BIND9 tends to require a lot of memory.  I'm not sure if
> it can reasonably function with a total system memory of 32MB.
>
> Some related points:
> - if you enable threads, disable them.  With the thread support BIND9
>  will require even more memory.
> - "max-cache-size 1048576" is a meaningless configuration:
> Any positive values less than 2MB will be ignored reset
> to 2MB.
>  (from ARM)
> - 'rndc flush' doesn't release allocated system memory.  It just
>  frees all cache entries within the BIND9 process, so it's not
>  surprising that you didn't see the memory footprint decrease after
>  the flush operation.
>
> ---
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
> ___
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>

___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-15 Thread Thomas Schulz
In article ,
=?UTF-8?B?TGVvbmFyZG8gUm9kcmlndWVzIE1hZ2FsaMOjZXM=?=
  wrote:
>CgpQZXRlciBEYW1iaWVyIGVzY3JldmV1Ogo+IEkgY2FuIGNvbmZpcm0gYmluZCA5LjQgZG9lcyBy
>dW4gb24gYW4gKElCTSwgbm90IEludGVsKSA0ODYtU0NMLzIgd2l0aCAxNiBNQi4KPiBUaGF0IGNw
>dSBjYW4gYWRkcmVzcyBubyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gMTYgTUIuCj4KPiAkIGNhdCAvcHJvYy9tZW1pbmZv
>Cj4gICAgICAgICB0b3RhbDogICAgdXNlZDogICAgZnJlZTogIHNoYXJlZDogYnVmZmVyczogIGNh
>Y2hlZDoKPiBNZW06ICAxNDU0MDgwMCAxMDU5NjM1MiAgMzk0NDQ0OCAgMzE5NDg4MCAgMTAwMzUy
>MCAgMzUxODQ2NAo+ICAgCgogICAgdmVyeSBnb29kIHRvIGtub3cgdGhhdCA5LjQgaXMgcnVubmlu
>ZyBPSyBvbiBhIDE2TWIgbWFjaGluZSwgYSAKc2l0dWF0aW9uIGV2ZW4gd29yc3QgdGhhbiBtaW5l
>LCB3aGljaCBpcyAzMk1iIDopICAuLi4uIGknbGwgdHJ5IHRvIAppbnN0YWxsIDkuNCB0aGlzIHdl
>ZWsgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiA5LjUgYW5kIGNoZWNrIGlmIGl0IGhhcyBhIHNsb3dlciBtZW1vcnkgCmZv
>b3RwcmludC4KCiAgICB0aGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSB0aXAgISEhCgotLSAKCgoJQXRlbmNpb3NhbWVu
>dGUgLyBTaW5jZXJpbHksCglMZW9uYXJkbyBSb2RyaWd1ZXMKCVNvbHV0dGkgVGVjbm9sb2dpYQoJ
>aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zb2x1dHRpLmNvbS5icgoKCU1pbmhhIGFybWFkaWxoYSBkZSBTUEFNLCBOw4NP
>IG1hbmRlbSBlbWFpbAoJZ2VydHJ1ZGVzQHNvbHV0dGkuY29tLmJyCglNeSBTUEFNVFJBUCwgZG8g
>bm90IGVtYWlsIGl0CgoKCgpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
>X19fX19fXwpiaW5kLXVzZXJzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApiaW5kLXVzZXJzQGxpc3RzLmlzYy5vcmcK
>aHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0cy5pc2Mub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vYmluZC11c2Vycw==


You know, the above is not very usefull.  Can someone please fix the
newsgroup gateway.
-- 
Tom Schulz
sch...@adi.com
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users


Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-15 Thread Дмитрий Рыбин

I just test bind 9.5.0-P2 and 9.5.1-rc1

Bind 9.5.0-P2 allocate over 2Gb per 10 minutes of work.
Bind 9.5.1 allocate 2Gb per 30 hours.

14.12.2008, в 2:15, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 написал(а):


At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:50:52 -0200,
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães  wrote:

   i'm trying to run bind 9.5.0-P2 on a very low memory system.  
It's a

RouterBoard 450 with 32Mb RAM running OpenWRT.

r...@sede:~# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal:29920 kB

   the problem is that bind seems to consume a LOT of memory ...  
well,
a lot for low memory devices, i never noticed that on machines with  
BS

of RAM.


[snip]


   question is  is there something i can do to low bind's memory
usage and successfully run it on those very low embedded devices ???


Admittedly, BIND9 tends to require a lot of memory.  I'm not sure if
it can reasonably function with a total system memory of 32MB.

Some related points:
- if you enable threads, disable them.  With the thread support BIND9
 will require even more memory.
- "max-cache-size 1048576" is a meaningless configuration:
Any positive values less than 2MB will be ignored reset
to 2MB.
 (from ARM)
- 'rndc flush' doesn't release allocated system memory.  It just
 frees all cache entries within the BIND9 process, so it's not
 surprising that you didn't see the memory footprint decrease after
 the flush operation.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users



___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-14 Thread Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães



Peter Dambier escreveu:

I can confirm bind 9.4 does run on an (IBM, not Intel) 486-SCL/2 with 16 MB.
That cpu can address no more than 16 MB.

$ cat /proc/meminfo
total:used:free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  14540800 10596352  398  3194880  1003520  3518464
  


   very good to know that 9.4 is running OK on a 16Mb machine, a 
situation even worst than mine, which is 32Mb :)   i'll try to 
install 9.4 this week instead of 9.5 and check if it has a slower memory 
footprint.


   thanks for the tip !!!

--


Atenciosamente / Sincerily,
Leonardo Rodrigues
Solutti Tecnologia
http://www.solutti.com.br

Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email
gertru...@solutti.com.br
My SPAMTRAP, do not email it




___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-14 Thread Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães



JINMEI Tatuya /  escreveu:


question is  is there something i can do to low bind's memory 
usage and successfully run it on those very low embedded devices ???



Admittedly, BIND9 tends to require a lot of memory.  I'm not sure if
it can reasonably function with a total system memory of 32MB.

Some related points:
- if you enable threads, disable them.  With the thread support BIND9
  will require even more memory.
  

   yes threads are already disabled. Compilation is done this way:

CONFIGURE_ARGS += \
   --enable-shared \
   --enable-static \
   --enable-ipv6 \
   --with-randomdev="/dev/urandom" \
   --disable-threads \
   --with-openssl="$(STAGING_DIR)/usr" \
   --with-libtool \
   --with-libxml2=no \
   , \
   BUILD_CC="$(TARGET_CC)" \



- "max-cache-size 1048576" is a meaningless configuration:
 Any positive values less than 2MB will be ignored reset
 to 2MB.
  (from ARM)
  
   i do RTFM :)   and on the options section, max-cache-size 
description, there's nothing about that. But if you say so, i'm sure 
it's there somewhere :) I have done a quick search on 9.5 ARM and really 
didnt find it .


   anyway, i successfully found that validation on the code ... 
dns_cache_setcachesize and DNS_CACHE_MINSIZE . anything smaller than 
2Mb is replaced by 2Mb. Anyway, even the 1Mb being meaningless, it would 
force the DNS_CACHE_MINSIZE (2Mb) to be used and not the default one 
which is 32Mb. Even if the 1Mb parameter is ignored, the 2Mb would be 
something to me, comparing to 32Mb default one.


   anyway, thanks for the tip. I would never realize that.

--


Atenciosamente / Sincerily,
Leonardo Rodrigues
Solutti Tecnologia
http://www.solutti.com.br

Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email
gertru...@solutti.com.br
My SPAMTRAP, do not email it



___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-13 Thread Peter Dambier
I can confirm bind 9.4 does run on an (IBM, not Intel) 486-SCL/2 with 16 MB.
That cpu can address no more than 16 MB.

$ cat /proc/meminfo
total:used:free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  14540800 10596352  398  3194880  1003520  3518464
Swap: 133885952 11907072 121978880
MemTotal: 14200 kB
MemFree:   3852 kB
MemShared: 3120 kB
Buffers:980 kB
Cached:3436 kB
SwapTotal:   130748 kB
SwapFree:119120 kB


So it is consuming 11 MB swap right now.

Bind performs reasonably. It is my local resolver and it is
running an alternative root-zone plus a couple of other zones.

vanadium  up  5+14:18, 1 user,   load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

It is running for 5 and a half days now.

Freshly started the swapsize is zero but after a day or two
swap is waxing, never waning.

Kind regards
Peter


JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:50:52 -0200,
> Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães  wrote:
>  
>> i'm trying to run bind 9.5.0-P2 on a very low memory system. It's a 
>> RouterBoard 450 with 32Mb RAM running OpenWRT.
>>
>> r...@sede:~# cat /proc/meminfo
>> MemTotal:29920 kB
>>
>> the problem is that bind seems to consume a LOT of memory ... well, 
>> a lot for low memory devices, i never noticed that on machines with BS 
>> of RAM.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> question is  is there something i can do to low bind's memory 
>> usage and successfully run it on those very low embedded devices ???
> 
> Admittedly, BIND9 tends to require a lot of memory.  I'm not sure if
> it can reasonably function with a total system memory of 32MB.
> 
> Some related points:
> - if you enable threads, disable them.  With the thread support BIND9
>   will require even more memory.
> - "max-cache-size 1048576" is a meaningless configuration:
>  Any positive values less than 2MB will be ignored reset
>  to 2MB.
>   (from ARM)
> - 'rndc flush' doesn't release allocated system memory.  It just
>   frees all cache entries within the BIND9 process, so it's not
>   surprising that you didn't see the memory footprint decrease after
>   the flush operation.
> 
> ---
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
> ___
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: pe...@peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Re: bind memory usage

2008-12-13 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
At Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:50:52 -0200,
Leonardo Rodrigues Magalhães  wrote:
 
> i'm trying to run bind 9.5.0-P2 on a very low memory system. It's a 
> RouterBoard 450 with 32Mb RAM running OpenWRT.
> 
> r...@sede:~# cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal:29920 kB
> 
> the problem is that bind seems to consume a LOT of memory ... well, 
> a lot for low memory devices, i never noticed that on machines with BS 
> of RAM.

[snip]

> question is  is there something i can do to low bind's memory 
> usage and successfully run it on those very low embedded devices ???

Admittedly, BIND9 tends to require a lot of memory.  I'm not sure if
it can reasonably function with a total system memory of 32MB.

Some related points:
- if you enable threads, disable them.  With the thread support BIND9
  will require even more memory.
- "max-cache-size 1048576" is a meaningless configuration:
 Any positive values less than 2MB will be ignored reset
 to 2MB.
  (from ARM)
- 'rndc flush' doesn't release allocated system memory.  It just
  frees all cache entries within the BIND9 process, so it's not
  surprising that you didn't see the memory footprint decrease after
  the flush operation.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users