Wouldn't it be something along the lines about recursive using cache-in-memory where the authoritative is using lookups of zone-in-memory?
The algorithms are probably different. I've not looked at the code though. Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: bind-users-bounces+stuart.browne=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org > [mailto:bind-users-bounces+stuart.browne=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org] > On Behalf Of Doug Barton > Sent: Monday, 13 January 2014 1:11 PM > To: Leonard Mills; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Generic reasons for recursive performance not to peg CPU? > > Thanks for the response, but you're answering a different question than > I asked. :) The question I'm interested in is, "Why is the recursive > server not pegging the CPU?" I'm aware that there will be a difference > in qps between auth-only and recursive, but the recursive server seems > to be working a lot less hard than the auth server, and I can't figure > out why. > > Doug > > > On 01/12/2014 06:07 PM, Leonard Mills wrote: > > Are you allowing long answers when authoritative? Performance > > measurements with and without additional data in responses is measurable > > (imo around 12% more network traffic from the replies on auth-only > servers). > > _______________________________________________ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to > unsubscribe from this list > > bind-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
