| To: | dns@list.cr.yp.to |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 64bit dnscache |
| From: | Jeremy Kister <djb-dns@jeremykister.com> |
| Date: | Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:18:51 -0500 |
| 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: | <20070204105854.GJ4966@m.safari.iki.fi> |
| 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> <20070204105854.GJ4966@m.safari.iki.fi> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) |
On 2/4/2007 5:58 AM, Sami Farin wrote: Look at cache_get. get4() returns uint32 and so on, so it doesn't matter if your resource limits aregazillion gigabytes. Hmm.. I see there. Seems more entangled than I thought it'd be. 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... That's an excellent suggestion, except I'd need to buy (or make) at least two biggish load balancers -- far too many clients use this ip address as one of their recursive name servers for me to contact and reconfigure them all. That's on the todo list, but for today I'm not able to :-/ Thanks, -- Jeremy Kister http://jeremy.kister.net./ |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 64bit dnscache, Sami Farin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: djbdns-1.05-epoll + speedup patch, Andrzej Kukula |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 64bit dnscache, Sami Farin |
| Next by Thread: | Re: djbdns-1.05-epoll + speedup patch, Andrzej Kukula |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |