> The FreeBSD pthread library and BIND don't work well together. If
> you use the libthr library, performance goes up.
I still didn't make tests with this lib, but I rebuilt everything on
FreeBSD 6.0 and got nice numbers:
DNS performance number
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:18:01 +0100
"O. Hartmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I complain about the dramatic performance drainage of FreeBSD and
> would also say, that my main purpose for an UNIX driven box isn't the
> service for network like routing, DNS and others. But I'm frightened by
>
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 04:43:49PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:52:47AM -0200, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
The results were discussed in the following threads:
I see the speed differences are major, but don't have a
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 04:43:49PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:52:47AM -0200, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
> > >
> > > The results were discussed in the following threads:
> > >
> >
> > I see the speed differences are major, but don't h
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:52:47AM -0200, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
The results were discussed in the following threads:
I see the speed differences are major, but don't have a good idea
of what 15,000 DNS queries per second means. Is the following
interpretati
On Nov 18, 2006, at 7:52 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
FYI: In response to feedback from ISC, there are UDP transmit
optimizations
in FreeBSD 7.x. These have a relatively minor performance impact
for
single-threaded applications, but in the special case of BIND
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:52:47AM -0200, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
>
> The results were discussed in the following threads:
>
I see the speed differences are major, but don't have a good idea
of what 15,000 DNS queries per second means. Is the following
interpretation correct?
15,000 D
Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 02:52:33PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
These results looks very puzzling to me.
As far as I know, multithreading and/or multiprocessors should perform
better anyway than a single threaded application within other
applications on an UP box.
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 02:52:33PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> These results looks very puzzling to me.
> As far as I know, multithreading and/or multiprocessors should perform
> better anyway than a single threaded application within other
> applications on an UP box. Strange results ...And more
Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
>> FYI: In response to feedback from ISC, there are UDP transmit optimizations
>> in FreeBSD 7.x. These have a relatively minor performance impact for
>> single-threaded applications, but in the special case of BIND accessing a
>> single UDP socket from many dif
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
I made some tests using 7.x with all the debugging disabled:
queries / s
Int bind (d_t) bind (e_t) nsd (1_s) nsd (2_s)
--- -- -- - -
bge
> >I made some tests using 7.x with all the debugging disabled:
> >
> > queries / s
> >
> >Int bind (d_t) bind (e_t) nsd (1_s) nsd (2_s)
> >--- -- -- - -
> >
> >bge 15439 14733
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
I made some tests using 7.x with all the debugging disabled:
queries / s
Int bind (d_t) bind (e_t) nsd (1_s) nsd (2_s)
--- -- -- - -
bge
> FYI: In response to feedback from ISC, there are UDP transmit optimizations
> in FreeBSD 7.x. These have a relatively minor performance impact for
> single-threaded applications, but in the special case of BIND accessing a
> single UDP socket from many different threads, it significantly impr
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
Dave, could you please describe you test set?
I've posted some results months ago and they were kind different.
I have done some tests [1] [2] with bind and queryperf and my result on
FreeBSD 6.1 was very poor if compared with 4.11.
Besi
On Oct 30, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Marcelo Gardini do Amaral wrote:
Dave, could you please describe you test set?
All the hardware is the same. Queryperf was run on a FreeBSD 6.1
box. Both boxes are connected through a Cisco switch. All connections
are gig, full duplex. Test was done with changi
Dave, could you please describe you test set?
I've posted some results months ago and they were kind different.
I have done some tests [1] [2] with bind and queryperf and my result
on FreeBSD 6.1 was very poor if compared with 4.11.
Besides this, I have had bad results with NSD + 6.1 too and it
On Oct 25, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:56:27AM -0500, Dave wrote:
On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:59:57 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
with
On Oct 25, 2006, at 2:35 AM, Divacky Roman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:59:57PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share
the
first results. The first tests are
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:56:27AM -0500, Dave wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >At Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:59:57 -0500,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
> >>with different configurations on FreeB
On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:59:57 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share
the
first results. The first tests are
On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:59:57 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share
the
first results. The first tests are
At Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:59:57 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
> with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share the
> first results. The first tests are for serving up static data.
Thanks very much for thi
Quoting Borja Marcos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Wed, 25 Oct 2006
10:44:42 +0200):
According to the bind9 port makefile, using threads is _not_
recommended. Specifically, it seems it's a recommendation from ISC
It would be a good idea to add this note. It's good to experiment with
performance
I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share
the
first results. The first tests are for serving up static data.
I added this to
http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkMatrix
According to the bind9 port mak
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:59:57 -0500):
I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share the
first results. The first tests are for serving up static data.
I added this to
http://w
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:59:57PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
> with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share the
> first results. The first tests are for serving up static data.
>
> System:
> Superm
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 10:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
> with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share the
> first results. The first tests are for serving up static data.
>
> System:
> Supermicro P
I am running some performance tests on named to see how it performs
with different configurations on FreeBSD and figured I would share the
first results. The first tests are for serving up static data.
System:
Supermicro PDSMi Motherboard
1G Memory
Intel Pentium D CPU 3.40GHz
Intel Gigibit
29 matches
Mail list logo
