Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:46:01 +0900
(Sorry for top posting.)
Its not actually -that- bad an idea to compare different applications.
It sets the "bar" for how far the entire system {hardware, OS,
application, network} can be pushed.
If nsd beats bind9 by say 5 or 10% over all, then its nothing to write
home about. If nsd beats bind9 by 50% and shows similar
kernel/interrupt space time use then thats something to stare at. Even
if its just because nsd 'does less' and gives more CPU time to
system/interrupt processing you've identified that the system -can- be
pushed harder, and perhaps working with the bind9 guys a little more
can identify what they're doing wrong.
Thats how I noticed the performance differences between various
platforms running Squid a few years ago - for example, gettimeofday()
being called way, way too frequently - and I compare Squid's
kernel/interrupt time; syscall footprint; hwpmc/oprofile traces; etc
against other proxy-capable applications (varnish, lighttpd, apache)
to see exactly what they're doing differently.
2c,
adrian
On 28/02/2008, Sam Leffler <sam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 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?
>>>
>> I have been trying to replicate this. ISC have kindly given me access
>> 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"
--
Adrian Chadd - adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
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: Kris Kennaway
- 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
- From: Sam Leffler
- RE: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Prev by Date: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Next by Date: Re: FBSD 1GBit router? - solved
- Previous by thread: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Next by thread: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
