| To: | dns@list.cr.yp.to |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 64bit dnscache |
| From: | Sami Farin <safari-dns@safari.iki.fi> |
| Date: | Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:58:54 +0200 |
| Delivered-to: | sp-com-lists@consult.net |
| Delivered-to: | gmail-djbdns@securepoint.com |
| Delivered-to: | sp.com.list@gmail.com |
| Delivered-to: | mailing list dns@list.cr.yp.to |
| In-reply-to: | <45C5A0D2.5060005@jeremykister.com> |
| Mail-followup-to: | dns@list.cr.yp.to |
| Mailing-list: | contact dns-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm |
| References: | <45C597CE.9060901@jeremykister.com> <20070204084510.GA12679@coredump.intra.peff.net> <45C5A0D2.5060005@jeremykister.com> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 04:01:06 -0500, Jeremy Kister wrote: > On 2/4/2007 3:45 AM, Jeff King wrote: > >Sounds like your DATALIMIT is not getting set correctly. That is handled > >by the softlimit program in daemontools. Did you also compile > >daemontools with similar settings? > > Nope -- good call. Look at cache_get. get4() returns uint32 and so on, so it doesn't matter if your resource limits are gazillion gigabytes. Why don't you just run one dnscache on one CPU? If dnscache uses 2^32-1 bytes each, then you'd have 2 GB left for other stuff... --
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 64bit dnscache, Jeff King |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 64bit dnscache, Jeremy Kister |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 64bit dnscache, Jeff King |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 64bit dnscache, Jeremy Kister |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |