another performance tuning question
Mike Hoskins (michoski)
michoski at cisco.com
Mon Dec 3 04:30:36 UTC 2012
From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <jreed at isc.org>
Date: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:18 PM
To: "Adamiec, Lawrence" <ladamiec at kentlaw.iit.edu>
Cc: "bind-users at lists.isc.org" <bind-users at lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: another performance tuning question
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Adamiec, Lawrence wrote:
>> I got similar results when running against the master server.
>Then why so many lost?
>> Queries sent: 11000 queries
>> Queries completed: 8968 queries
>> Queries lost: 2032 queries
>> Percentage completed: 81.53%
>> Percentage lost: 18.47%
>Look at your queryperf data file and figure out what is not hosted by
>you. Some of my systems get around 60,000 QPS with none lost. If
>really do host these on same system, and are really lost, then will need
>Even if you are doing recursive work, your results are quite slow. you
>may want to look in your queryperf input to see what is causing
>problems. (It may not be a realistic, real world input set.)
Based on your "hosted by you" reference, I assume 60K QPS was only
resolving local names? If not I'd love to see the config.
Some extra data points for the OP:
I might have misread (or be mis-remembering since I last tested), but I
think the default resperf query file includes ten million "real-world"
entries -- if testing recursion, try it vs generating your own.
If you are not just doing local queries, from experience server hardware
(physical or virtual) and bandwidth play a big part in the numbers. More
cores = more worker threads, faster connectivity to upstream servers =
With the default resperf query file and drop rate capped at 1%, I was able
to get ~20K qps w/ four vCPUs vs ~5K with one vCPU (VMware, RHEL, BIND
More information about the bind-users