On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:54:10 -0700 Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah@zimbra.com wrote:
--On Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:50 PM +0200 Pavlos Parissis p_pavlos@freemail.gr wrote:
Well, when I sent the mail this ITS wasn't there.
But, how long is that "temporarily" ? In my case it was 32000 entries more than the limit.
As long as the conditions noted in ITS#5721 apply, I'd think.
Isn't it too dangerous to have that "termporarily" period?
Dangerous how? Previous releases had no upper limit, and although that caused more memory usage, it wasn't dangerous...
In our test we saw that when the dnchache was way too above the limit the system starting to swap a lot. We have quite long DNs , but I don't know the actual size.
BTW, what is the actual size that is being allocated in the memory for each entry in dncache? I know that the entries in entry cache are about twice as large as they are on disk, but I don't know about the dncache entries.
Cheers, Pavlos