[Opendnssec-develop] Re: Memory Usage in OpenDNSSEC signer 1.3.2 and ldns 1.6.10
matthijs at NLnetLabs.nl
Tue Nov 15 09:07:39 UTC 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Now that it becomes clear to us that the memory usage in OpenDNSSEC is a
real issue (unlike the reports I heard in the summer), we will reserve
resources to tackle this:
* I have notified Willem, the ldns maintainer, to look into the ldns
* I will implement a region allocator like unbound/nsd to reduce the
number of mallocs/frees.
* I will use a different structure than ldns_rdf** to store the rdata
On 11/14/2011 03:13 PM, Miek Gieben wrote:
> [ Quoting <jerry at opendnssec.org> at 14:46 on Nov 14 in "Memory Usage in Open..." ]
>> I have finished my report on the memory usage, you can read it at:
>> And find the code at:
> A very interesting read! Thanks for looking in to this.
> So basically with a few "simple" fixes you cut memory by 25%. That is a nice
> result. From the top of my head, the simple tests I did with BIND resulted
> in another 25% drop of the memory used, so we are half way there :-)
> As you say, checking the temporary allocations in ldns seems to be a worth
> while endevour, and I'm willing to help (if needed).
> About the rdf structure in ldns. Yes, I see that from a memory allocation they
> suck, but at the time they made ldns tick. I.e. when we introduced the rdf
> type in ldns all the RR types became very easy to implement.
> Having said that, I think a higher memory usage compared to BIND is justified,
> as ldns is a generic (extensible) dns library.
> Are there any "next steps" planned?
> Opendnssec-develop mailing list
> Opendnssec-develop at lists.opendnssec.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Opendnssec-develop