Bind performance as caching nameserver
Ulrich David
david.ulrich at siesa.ch
Mon Sep 8 13:45:18 UTC 2008
You are right, I would have put recursive clients to a very large
value in order to see what is the real max performance.
But in the real case, I never have more than 1500 recursive clients.
David
Le 28 août 08 à 23:37, Kevin Darcy a écrit :
> Why do you have a recursive-clients limit of 1500 if the point is to
> push your box to the breaking point?
>
> - Kevin
>
> Ulrich David wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm testing some configuration for my caching name server with Bind
>> 9.4.2-P2 using resperf. The server is a dual Core Xeon at 2,3GHz 2GB
>> Ram runing gentoo linux. The goal is to have maximum performance from
>> this box.
>>
>> The problem is I don't know which performance I can expect of, in
>> term
>> of latency and in term of response per second (without or with loss).
>>
>> Here is my results :
>> Statistics:
>>
>> Queries sent: 187367
>> Queries completed: 136574
>> Queries lost: 50793
>> Ran for: 54.994721 seconds
>> Maximum throughput: 15492.000000 qps
>> Lost at that point: 9.31%
>>
>> # time target_qps actual_qps responses_per_sec failures_per_sec
>> avg_latency
>> 0.250 416.67 416.00 416.00 2.00 0.007470
>> 0.750 1250.00 1250.00 1250.00 18.00 0.010431
>> 1.250 2083.33 2082.00 2082.00 40.00 0.004323
>> 1.750 2916.67 2918.00 2918.00 290.00 0.186844
>> 2.250 3750.00 3750.00 3750.00 2186.00 2.234745
>> 2.750 4583.33 4582.00 4582.00 1668.00 2.879924
>> 3.250 5416.67 5418.00 5418.00 1260.00 1.817618
>> 3.750 6250.00 6250.00 6250.00 2864.00 4.013023
>> 4.250 7083.33 7082.00 7082.00 1760.00 1.853761
>> 4.750 7916.67 7918.00 7918.00 2450.00 2.763024
>> 5.250 8750.00 8750.00 8750.00 4146.00 3.793698
>> 5.750 9583.33 9582.00 9582.00 3522.00 2.775299
>> 6.250 10416.67 10418.00 10418.00 3796.00 2.814351
>> 6.750 11250.00 11250.00 11250.00 4872.00 3.234263
>> 7.250 12083.33 12082.00 12082.00 4454.00 2.876617
>> 7.750 12916.67 12918.00 12918.00 6312.00 3.520631
>> 8.250 13750.00 13750.00 13750.00 6200.00 3.318447
>> 8.750 14583.33 14582.00 14582.00 4192.00 2.017755
>> 9.250 15416.67 15418.00 15418.00 4278.00 1.928234
>> 9.750 16250.00 16250.00 13854.00 4998.00 2.440862
>> 10.250 17083.33 17082.00 15492.00 6544.00 2.837576
>> 10.750 17916.67 17918.00 12032.00 4430.00 2.467845
>> 11.250 18750.00 18750.00 13120.00 4354.00 2.217802
>> 11.750 19583.33 19582.00 15038.00 4810.00 2.081687
>> 12.250 20416.67 20418.00 10182.00 3070.00 1.983601
>> 12.750 21250.00 21250.00 8074.00 2832.00 2.224380
>> 13.250 22083.33 22082.00 9254.00 2834.00 1.906686
>> 13.750 22916.67 22918.00 8896.00 2326.00 1.752326
>> 14.250 23750.00 23750.00 8964.00 2992.00 2.003389
>>
>> I'm quite surprised by the failures and by the average latency for
>> more than 1500 qps...
>>
>> Are these results realistic for this hardware configuration or have I
>> miss something in my config file?
>>
>> query logging is OFF and my options are :
>> options {
>> directory "/var/bind";
>> pid-file "/var/run/named/named.pid";
>> statistics-file "/var/bind/stats/named.stats";
>>
>> listen-on-v6 { none; };
>> listen-on { myself; };
>>
>> version "None of your business";
>> allow-query { trusted_network; };
>> blackhole { blacklist; };
>> max-cache-size 0;
>> recursive-clients 1500;
>> };
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the bind-users
mailing list