Re: [Pdns-users] mysql-tests
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 10:22:58PM +0200, fredrik danerklint wrote: > erkan, > > if you used a script to generate all the data, do you think that you can post > that so I also can run these test against the mongodbbackend? > > Na not really. The basic idea is/was to go through seq() and use md5 to build domains. So the domains are going to be longer as you would expect in standard workload. Having this list. you can fill domains and records where records are going to have 7-10 records. All the same www/mail/ns etc. Beside the md5() idea not worth of posting :( Regards Erkan -- über den grenzen muß die freiheit wohl wolkenlos sein ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Status of the LDAP backend in 3.0 release
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 08:57:20PM +0100, Chris Russell wrote: > However, I was at the UK version of NANOG (UKNOF) meeting a few weeks > back, with a lot of people from ISP's and a few fairly senior people from > ISC and I asked the same question - not one recomended Power DNS with Well, what can I say. Some of the largest DNS hosters in the UK use PowerDNS, but perhaps they don't show up at UKNOF meetings? It may also be a bit much to ask ISC to recommend PowerDNS! ;-) > i) Is there a correct Schema for MySQL ? I seem to have found 2 .. one > pretty basic, and one pretty advanced (with webforwards?) - is there a > definitive schema to use ? The 'generic MySQL' one is the one to use. > ii) When using the MySQL backend, I've noted if the MySQL server is > restarted, it often takes PowerDNS around a minute to realise this and in > the interim sends failures - even for records which should be in the cache > - is there a setting or settings I can look at to make this more efficient > ? Hmm, this may be due to http://wiki.powerdns.com/trac/changeset/2189 and http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-dev/2011-April/000945.html It depends a bit on what MySQL does on a restart/reload, if it keeps the old connections idle and does not close them, this might be what you are seeing. Can you see if you can reproduce this issue against build 2189, which can be found on http://powerdnssec.org/downloads/ and http://powerdnssec.org/downloads/packages ? > One thing I will say though, the Bind 10 roadmap does look rather > interesting, almost giving a powershell type environment to Bind. > Although thats 3 years away :) Who knows where PowerDNS is three years from now. I wish BIND 10 the best of luck. Bert ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] mysql-tests
erkan, if you used a script to generate all the data, do you think that you can post that so I also can run these test against the mongodbbackend? > Moin Bert, > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:15:27PM +0200, bert hubert wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 01:04:51AM +0200, erkan yanar wrote: > > > As Im missing any good data I created 6*10^6 entries for domains and > > > for every domain some entries in the records-table (about 66*10^6) > > > > That is a pretty good test! 6 million domains is around 2 million domains > > smaller than the largest deployment we know of. > > > > > Queries per second: 10923.212970 qps > > > > Interesting. Post 3.0 we will be focussing on performance for a few > > releases. It may well be that we'll add guidance on which indexes to use. > > In fact I did a new test (on sunday azlev forced me to use -q :): > > # ./dnsperf -d /var/tmp/pdns.list -q 4000 -s localhost > > DNS Performance Testing Tool > > Nominum Version 1.0.1.0 > > [Status] Processing input data > [Status] Sending queries (to 127.0.0.1) > [Status] Testing complete > > Statistics: > > Parse input file: once > Ended due to: reaching end of file > > Queries sent: 494969 queries > Queries completed:494969 queries > Queries lost: 0 queries > > Avg request size: 55 bytes > Avg response size:81 bytes > > Percentage completed: 100.00% > Percentage lost:0.00% > > Started at: Sun Apr 24 02:50:44 2011 > Finished at: Sun Apr 24 02:51:05 2011 > Ran for: 21.518132 seconds > > Queries per second: 23002.414894 qps > > With pdns-cache it was easy doubled (with up to 1% Packet lost). > > > > As I miss live/real data I would like to get into contact with some > > > live/real-data. > > > > You can use tcpdump & dnsreplay perhaps? > > Naa Im just a little dba. In fact I own 5 domains:) > > Erkan > > ___ > Pdns-users mailing list > Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com > http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users -- //fredan ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Authoritative Server 3.0 RC2 Performance?
> > > I recently rebuilt my backend to work with version 3.0. Previously > performance, as measured by respperf, was in the upper 60K per second range. > Now it seems to be in the low 7K range running the exact same set of data. > > Looks like this is my problem, not a problem with the pdns code. Zane ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Status of the LDAP backend in 3.0 release
Nick. > If you search in the Internet, you'll find ample evidence that BIND / DLZ is > not a production solution. In terms of performance, it Really glad someone started this thread as I was about to post something similar. Around 4-5 years ago when we started the ISP I looked into Bind DLZ, and I came to the same conclusion in that it was contrib code and the backend as such was unstable and not production ready. I ended up writing a web interface which translated to a database into text files to load into Bind. I`m now in a similar position, in that I need something more dynamic that my current solution, I've looked into DLZ and pretty saw not too much in the way of serious stability and I've ended up preparing a roll out of PowerDNS. However, I was at the UK version of NANOG (UKNOF) meeting a few weeks back, with a lot of people from ISP's and a few fairly senior people from ISC and I asked the same question - not one recomended Power DNS with pretty much similar arguements as you've made vs Bind DLZ. THis was however after 1 or 2 beers but this was some of the bigger UK specific players in networks, hosting and so on. I'm more than likely heading down the Power DNS route for my auth servers however, theres a couple of things I've noted which I'd appreciate if you could shed some light on: i) Is there a correct Schema for MySQL ? I seem to have found 2 .. one pretty basic, and one pretty advanced (with webforwards?) - is there a definitive schema to use ? ii) When using the MySQL backend, I've noted if the MySQL server is restarted, it often takes PowerDNS around a minute to realise this and in the interim sends failures - even for records which should be in the cache - is there a setting or settings I can look at to make this more efficient ? Am on the 2.9.22 stable RPM release and I admit I could be RTFM incorrectly :) One thing I will say though, the Bind 10 roadmap does look rather interesting, almost giving a powershell type environment to Bind. Although thats 3 years away :) Cheers Chris Knowledge I.T. 'Unifying Business Technology' www.knowledgeit.co.uk Knowledge Limited, Company Registration: 1554385 Registered Office: New Century House, Crowther Road, Washington, Tyne & Wear. NE38 0AQ Leeds Office: Viscount Court, Leeds Road, Rothwell, Leeds. LS26 0GR Tel: 0845 142 0020. Fax: 0845 142 0021 E-Mail Disclaimer: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients of Knowledge IT may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Authoritative Server 3.0 RC2 Performance?
> Can you tell us a little bit about your backend and your workload? My backend is essentially a very large cache. I load several million resource records when the backend first initializes. I am currently using 6 distributor threads on a 16 core system. The threads all share the cache. I'm using rdwr locking but there should be little contention since virtually all accesses are reads. Every 10 seconds the backend cache might have a few changes. This is exactly what I was doing with the previous backend. Given that you are seeing good performance I will look at my code again to see if I might be causing my own problems. Since my initial post I noticed one area of my code where I might be getting into trouble with the STL. Will route around that code and see how it affects performance. ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Sorting of DNS responses
On 29/4/2011 10:43 πμ, Roland Schwingel wrote:
I am using pdns 2.9.22 with ldap backend for many months now. It works
very nice and without troubles.Thanks for this...
Maybe I am too dump to find this in the docu but I need to sort the
responses of dns replies according to where the request comes from.
Similar to the sortlist feature of bind.
Hi Roland,
I am happy to hear that you are one more user of the LDAP backend; we
have a hard time identifying such users and as a result the LDAP backend
is in a bit of a possible crisis, I'm afraid... (I assume you must have
only now subscribed to this list.)
BIND statements rrset-order and sortlist don't seem to be supported with
any PowerDNS backend, neither in LDAP backend.
Are you using LDAP DNS simple style or tree style?
One workaround would be to have a different virtual (i.e. without its
own NS records and without a SOA record) subdomain ("subzone") for each
network; for example:
192.168.0.0/24 > sub0.my.net
192.168.1.0/24 > sub1.my.net
192.168.2.0/24 > sub2.my.net
192.168.4.0/24 > sub4.my.net
Then, you would define different names for the host in each network; for
example:
myhost.sub0.my.net ->192.168.0.11
myhost.sub1.my.net -> 192.168.1.11
myhost.sub2.my.net -> 192.168.2.11
myhost.sub4.my.net -> 192.168.4.11
(it doesn't have to be .11 everywhere, but I guess it's more convenient
from an admin viewpoint.)
This is what we are doing in our networks (we were doing so even with
BIND, before using PowerDNS with LDAP backend). I believe this is a more
flexible, scalable and a much more admin-friendly approach.
Nick
___
Pdns-users mailing list
Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Status of the LDAP backend in 3.0 release
On 1/5/2011 12:58 πμ, Alejandro wrote: The other real option to use in LDAP is binddlz project but is experimental and very complex to use in any tool, but have all the features :(. I really like to see a update of the powerdns-ldap plugin because also I think that ldap is a really good backend to manage DNS. Hi Alejantro, Some additional thoughts: Even in the state it is now, PowerDNS with LDAP backend (and with any other backend) is an efficient production solution while BIND9/DLZ is not. I would *not* recommend anyone to switch from PowerDNS, if they want any working backend except BIND (text files). See for example tests at: http://bind-dlz.sourceforge.net/perf_tests.html. All backends except BIND suck, esp. LDAP. If you search in the Internet, you'll find ample evidence that BIND / DLZ is not a production solution. In terms of performance, it simply is unacceptable. Nick ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Status of the LDAP backend in 3.0 release
On 30/4/2011 2:09 μμ, Angel Bosch Mora wrote: there's also bindings for every coding language, so as you said anyone can create their own tool. I forgot to comment that you are very right in that. For example: * PHP ldap bindings are great (we have used this API in our web application which I mentioned). (Pear also includes Net_LDAP2 as an object oriented API.) * Also there is http://www.unboundid.com/products/ldapsdk/ for Java which is allegedly better than (now Oracle's) JNDI. There is also Novell's JLDAP. * Perl includes Net::LDAP. * For JSP, one might want to see: o http://www.lumdev.net/node/3824 o http://www.lumdev.net/node/3861 * For MS ASP.net System.DirectoryServices, check: o http://forums.asp.net/p/907421/1007517.aspx * Mono ASP.net framework ships with Novell.Directory.Ldap library and probably others too. The only drawback, of course, is that it takes time and resources to do one's own development! So, specialized open-source applications like for example GoSA and PowerDNS Administrator (works only with SQL backend) in many cases offer administrators very useful tools with a fraction of the otherwise required effort. Nick ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Status of the LDAP backend in 3.0 release
On 1/5/2011 12:58 πμ, Alejandro wrote:
HI Nick, The powerdns plugin for GOsa is finished, but the lack of
DNSSEC and the chance of drop this feature in future versions of
powerdns force the debian-edu project to choose bind in place of
powerdns for the next version of debian-edu.
...
I really like to see a update of the powerdns-ldap plugin because also
I think that ldap is a really good backend to manage DNS.
Hi Alejandro,
I do hope and *I believe* that the PowerDNS development team will change
their mind and decide to - at least minimally for the time being -
support the LDAP backend. IMHO it's one of the hidden powers of
PowerDNS, and I have striven to demonstrate my case for the benefit of
the PowerDNS project. If the LDAP backend is moved to unmaintained
status, I believe that the whole PowerDNS project may be harmed in terms
of propagation, fame and reliability.
One dimension of the problem, perhaps not always considered, might be
that to include a new backend would perhaps be far easier than keeping
up with the currently existing ones: dropping or reducing support for
one of them will tend to reduce the "reliability index" (as perceived by
the "world") for the whole project, because, once a backend is released
and officially included in a release, there will be a community (known
or unknown) of users for that backend, even if that community is not in
a position to directly provide some kind of compensation (funds or
development resources) to the project. One could assert that even the
adoption of the PowerDNS software IS a kind of compensation, which will
provide mid-term/long-term benefit(s) of all types (e.g. publicity,
propagation, etc.).
Note that while the PowerDNS LDAP backend in Authoritative Server v3.0
will surely not support DNSSEC, one could very well use Phreebird for an
easy and efficient DNSSEC deployment, until DNSSEC is included in the
backend itself (which I believe it will).
I find the lack of "Notify" ("Master") ability in the LDAP backend even
more important at this stage (although one can use workarounds, as I
have mentioned in this mailing list).
All the best,
Nick
___
Pdns-users mailing list
Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
Re: [Pdns-users] Authoritative Server 3.0 RC2 Performance?
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:44:44PM -0700, Zane Thomas wrote: > I recently rebuilt my backend to work with version 3.0. Previously > performance, as measured by respperf, was in the upper 60K per second range. > Now it seems to be in the low 7K range running the exact same set of data. > > CPU usage never hits 100%, as it did previously, and at least half the time > being used is used in the kernel (according to htop). Zane, Can you tell us a little bit about your backend and your workload? In other measurements, 3.0RC2 has shown performance that is quite satisfying. So we need to figure out what is different for you. Bert ___ Pdns-users mailing list Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
