Performance tuning

Adamiec, Lawrence ladamiec at kentlaw.iit.edu
Mon Nov 26 22:15:11 UTC 2012


Thanks to everyone who replied.


Larry



On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Leonardo Santagostini <
lsantagostini at gmail.com> wrote:

> I see no problems.
>
> [ec2-user at domU-12-31-39-06-2E-64 ~]$ time dig www.kentlaw.iit.edu
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.0-P2-RedHat-9.7.0-5.P2.6.amzn1 <<>> www.kentlaw.iit.edu
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 54160
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
>
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;www.kentlaw.iit.edu.           IN      A
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> www.kentlaw.iit.edu.    86400   IN      A       64.131.119.9
>
> ;; Query time: 847 msec
> ;; SERVER: 200.51.197.187#53(200.51.197.187)
> ;; WHEN: Mon Nov 26 19:23:46 2012
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 53
>
>
> *real    0m0.854s*
> user    0m0.000s
> sys     0m0.008s
> [ec2-user at domU-12-31-39-06-2E-64 ~]$ time dig kentlaw.iit.edu
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.7.0-P2-RedHat-9.7.0-5.P2.6.amzn1 <<>> kentlaw.iit.edu
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 39163
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
>
> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> ;kentlaw.iit.edu.               IN      A
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> kentlaw.iit.edu.        86400   IN      A       64.131.119.9
>
> ;; Query time: 780 msec
> ;; SERVER: 200.51.197.187#53(200.51.197.187)
> ;; WHEN: Mon Nov 26 19:24:11 2012
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 49
>
>
> *real    0m0.799s*
> user    0m0.004s
> sys     0m0.016s
> [ec2-user at domU-12-31-39-06-2E-64 ~]$
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> regards
> Saludos.-
> Leonardo Santagostini
>
> <http://ar.linkedin.com/in/santagostini>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/11/26 Chuck Swiger <cswiger at mac.com>
>
>> Hi--
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Adamiec, Lawrence wrote:
>> > The report must also address these two specific questions:
>> >
>> >       • Why does www.kentlaw.iit.edu load quicker than kentlaw.iit.eduin any browser?
>> >       • What happens if we remove the forwarders option from named.conf?
>> > I can't duplicate the issue in Q1 and I'm trying to determine a way of
>> testing Q2.
>>
>> Q1 isn't related to DNS performance; both of the names you mention
>> resolve to the same IP address via an A record.  There wasn't a significant
>> difference in response time I saw by loading the webpages (both took ~1.3 s
>> per curl), but one likely could improve webserver performance by running
>> Apache, nginx, or almost anything else instead of than Microsoft's IIS.
>>
>> The domain seems to be missing A records for your nameservers, however:
>>
>>   http://www.dnsvalidation.com/reports/50b3b5167d79ee02b8000026
>>
>> As for Q2, it depends on whether the nameservers you are pointing to do
>> better in caching queries then your local nameservers would doing recursive
>> lookups for themselves.  If the local nameservers have poor connectivity
>> compared to the forwarders, maybe, otherwise it's probably not helpful to
>> use forwarders.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> -Chuck
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to
>> unsubscribe from this list
>>
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-users at lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20121126/6fadade5/attachment.html>


More information about the bind-users mailing list