Re: Finding the Bottleneck
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
Reply to: