(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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kris Kennaway > >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:18 PM > >> To: Oliver Herold; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > >> 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@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > -- Adrian Chadd - [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"