Francois, I ran it on a VM with 512Megs ram. serving about 200q/s public without any problem concerning performance.
The file we produced (the .cdb) was about 70Mb, containing ~60.000 records with a avarage of 10 records / zone. We also saw a performance increase by using powerdns+tinydns backend. I guess this is due to the caching mechanism and proper program development of powerdns. Regards, Henry Paulissen On 08/31/2012 01:30 PM, xbgmsharp wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for the reply. > I use PowerDNS's SVN version as TinyDNS backend is not ship by default > in the package. > So I believe, I have this patch apply, > http://wiki.powerdns.com/trac/changeset/2622 > I will apply the patch from github. > > According to my first test using dnsperf, PowerDNS with TinyDNS backend > seen faster than TinyDNS himself. > The biggest concern is stability to avoid PowerDNS to crash due to weird > data or too many data. > The file contains 26643 entries and errors. > It use the default configuration from PowerDNS, I am sure it could be > improve by tunning PowerDNS. > The system is Ubuntu 12.04 compile with gcc 4.6.3 on x86_64. > The hardware is a one Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @2.66GHz with 4 Cores > and 4096M System RAM. > It is not the production system but should give us a nice idea. > I need to go deeper in the testing, but so far so good. > > PowerdNS with tinyDNS backend. > Statistics: > > Queries sent: 26608 > Queries completed: 15416 (57.94%) > Queries lost: 11192 (42.06%) > > Response codes: NOERROR 15415 (99.99%), NXDOMAIN 1 (0.01%) > Average packet size: request 45, response 61 > Run time (s): 565.866733 > Queries per second: 27.243164 > > Average Latency (s): 0.035546 (min 0.033069, max 0.056192) > Latency StdDev (s): 0.001457 > > TinyDNS > Statistics: > > Queries sent: 26608 > Queries completed: 11835 (44.48%) > Queries lost: 14773 (55.52%) > > Response codes: NOERROR 11834 (99.99%), NXDOMAIN 1 (0.01%) > Average packet size: request 45, response 129 > Run time (s): 745.820314 > Queries per second: 15.868433 > > Average Latency (s): 0.049470 (min 0.041367, max 0.078622) > Latency StdDev (s): 0.004388 > > Regards, > Francois > > On 2012-08-31 10:18, Ruben d'Arco wrote: >> Hi Francois, >> >> The tinydnsbackend is marked experimental because 3.1 is the first >> release that has the backend. >> PowerDNS needs some 'out in the field' validation that the backend is >> working correctly. >> Please provide feedback, as we could then remove the experimental flag! >> >> We know one user who uses it with a data.cdb file > 70M. That user >> also has identified some issues, one >> important issue is fixed in http://wiki.powerdns.com/trac/changeset/2622 >> You can either apply the patch yourself, or take PowerDNS's SVN >> version to have this resolved. >> This patch is strongly recommended! >> >> The user also reported that PowerDNS handles errors in the data.cdb >> file different from tinydns. >> I've added an configuration option to allow the behaviour to be >> configurable, the patch for that can be found here: >> >> https://github.com/cyclops1982/powerdns/compare/master...tinydns2.diff >> This patch is only useful if your data.cdb file is not a 100% >> correct. Something that can be resolved by >> making sure your data file is correct before running tinydns-data. >> >> The scenario you're planning (move from dbjdns to powerdns and then >> change backend) is a scenario we've heard before >> and partially why the backend was created - the master mode that the >> backend provides should help you with this. >> >> Kind regards, >> Ruben d'Arco >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 09:53:58AM +0200, xbgmsharp wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> According to the documentation >>> (http://doc.powerdns.com/tinydnsbackend.html), the TinyDNS backend >>> is marked as experimental! >>> It this statement still true? >>> >>> We are currently using tinydns and djbdns in all our infrastructure. >>> We are thinking in moving to Powerdns to support new feature. >>> However before doing a big move, we would rater make the move in >>> multiple step. >>> The first step would be to use Powerdns with TinyDNS backend. >>> The second step would be to move from TinyDNS backend to a database >>> backend. >>> This second step require a rewrite of our DNS tools and it will take >>> longer. >>> >>> Our data.cdb is file is around 18M. >>> >>> Do you think it is safe to use Powerdns with TinyDNS backend in >>> production? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Francois >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pdns-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users >> _______________________________________________ >> Pdns-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users > > _______________________________________________ > Pdns-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pdns-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
