Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- From: Sam Leffler <sam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:53:37 -0800
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kris Kennaway
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:18 PM
To: Oliver Herold; freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx;
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
Oliver Herold wrote:
Hi,I have been trying to replicate this. ISC have kindly given me access
I saw this bind benchmarks just some minutes ago,
http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html
is this true for FreeBSD 7 (current state: RELENG_7/7.0R) too? Or is
this something verified only for the state of development back in August
2007?
to their test data but I am seeing Linux performing much slower than
FreeBSD with the same ISC workload.
Kris,
Every couple years we go through this with ISC. They come out with
a new version of BIND then claim that nothing other than Linux can
run it well. I've seen this nonsense before and it's tiresome.
Incidentally, the query tool they used, queryperf, has been changed
to dnsperf. Someone needs to look at that port - /usr/ports/dns/dnsperf -
as it has a build depend of bind9 - well bind 9.3.4 is part of 6.3-RELEASE
and I was rather irked when I ran the dnsperf port maker and the
maker stupidly began the process of downloading and building the
same version of BIND that I was already running on my server.
* I am trying to understand what is different about the ISC
configuration but have not yet found the cause.
It's called "Anti-FreeBSD bias". You won't find anything.
e.g. NSD
(ports/dns/nsd) is a much faster and more scalable DNS server than BIND
(because it is better optimized for the smaller set of features it
supports).
When you make remarks like that it's no wonder ISC is in the business
of slamming FreeBSD. People used to make the same claims about djbdns
but I noticed over the last few years they don't seem to be doing
that anymore.
If nsd is so much better than yank bind out of the base FreeBSD and
replace it with nsd. Of course that will make more work for me
when I regen our nameservers here since nsd will be the first thing
on the "rm" list.
Please save your rhetoric for some other forum. The ISC folks have been working with us to understand what's going on. I'm not aware of any anit-FreeBSD slams going on; mostly uninformed comments.
We believe FreeBSD does very well in any comparisons of the sort being discussed and there's still lots of room for improvement.
As to nsd vs bind, understand they are very different applications w/ totally different goals. Comparing performance is not entirely fair and certainly is difficult. Kris investigated the performance of nsd mostly to understand how bind might scale if certain architectural changes were made to eliminate known bottlenecks in the application.
Sam
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- From: Ted Mittelstaedt
- Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- From: Adrian Chadd
- RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- References:
- RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- From: Ted Mittelstaedt
- RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Prev by Date: Re: Slow iSCSI performance
- Next by Date: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Previous by thread: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Next by thread: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
