Re: data.tmp: file too big [SOLVED]

Hi Hugo,

You can indeed try the one-mmap-per-second patch by Lennert Buytenhek 
[1]. Maybe this alone could fix your problem. If not, try increasing the 
interval indeed (i.e. `tai_uint(&one_second, 5*60)' or so).

-- 
Kind regards,
Harm van Tilborg

[1] http://tinydns.org/one-second.patch

Hugo Monteiro wrote:
> Mark Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Hugo Monteiro 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>  
>>> Complementary information:
>>>
>>> The (truncated) data.tmp file that gets created is 2GB.
>>>
>>> I have also tested for filesystem large file support, with dd, and i was
>>> able to create a 4GB zeroed file so all seems fine.
>>>     
>>
>> You probably need to recompile with Large File Support Enabled.  See:
>>
>>   http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lfs20mar.html
>>
>> Executive Summary:  Try tossing D_FILE _OFFSET_BITS=64 info conf-cc if
>> you're using stock / patched djbdns.  For anybody using zinq (all two
>> of you), try:
>>
>>   ./configure CFLAGS="-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64"
>>
>> DISCLAIMER:  I'm no large files expert.  I haven't gotten around to
>> researching this issue and testing zinq-djbdns to make sure it works
>> with large ( > 2GB) files.
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> Mark and all,
> 
> Adding -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to the compilation flags did the trick. I 
> now have a 2.9G data.cdb file. The bad news is that apparently 
> tinydns/the system isn't capable of coping with that volume of information.
> 
> I have tried dedicating 2 cpus and 5GB of ram to that VM, and i even 
> tried mounting the contents of ~tinydns/root in a tmpfs filesystem, 
> hoping it would help. Tinydns continues to timeout and it IS a data 
> volume problem. No problems with smaller cdb files.
> 
> Has anyone successfully run tinydns with such large cdb file?
> 
> I read, not long ago, a discussion, in this list, about a patch to keep 
> tinydns from opening the cdb file for a certain interval. I believe it 
> would help, but i'd like to know if people using such patch are happy 
> with it. The data in it is rather static, so i was thinking about 5 mins 
> interval. Would that be excessive?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> Hugo Monteiro.
>