summy of some 9.1.0 perf work...

Rick Jones raj at
Fri Feb 9 00:29:15 UTC 2001

Here is a summary of some of the perf measurements I've made thusfar on
the 9.1.0 named. This follows a similar methodology to the briefs
already published at:

Here is the summary chart from one of the briefs there:

                8.1.2        8.2.2pl5     8.2.2pl5     8.2.2pl5
                 "HP"         "stock"       "-O"        "full"
   System    +====================================================
 L2000 1x440 |    9,863   |    3,529   |    5,935   |    8,772   |
 L2000 2x440 |   10,984   |    3,685   |    6,309   |    9,507   |
 J5000 2x440 |   10,550   |    3,670   |    6,421   |    9,436   |
 J5600 2x552 |   13,898   |    4,598   |    8,002   |   12,032   |

and here is the 9.1.0 stuff.

	  BIND 9.1.0 named Performance Summary HP-UX 11.ACE
       netperf DNS_RR test requesting 1000 out of

                                     +O2       +O2       
               "stock"   "+O2"      +DD64   nothread   "full"
   System    +=================================================+
 L3000 1x550 |  2,065  |  3,127  |  3,039  |  4,303  |         |
 L3000 2x550 |         |  5,338  |         |         |  6,771  |
 L3000 4x550 |         |  8,065  |         |  4,757  |         |

I hope to take some quick measurements on a J5600 to have an
apples-apples comparison.

I used the HP ANSI C compiler.

"stock" is as the bits compile out of the tarball - -g, not much else.

"+O2" is replacing the -g with +O2 (aka -O)

"+O2 +DD64" is a 64-bit compilation with +O2

"nothread" is with +O2 and configure --disable-threads

"full" in the 9.1.0 context is +O4, PBO (profile-based optimization),
static branch prediction, and large page sizes for text and data
segments. in the context of 8.2.2pl5 it was also a 64-bit compilation.

I expect at some point to be able to kick-loose the entire write-up
along with some profiles and processor performance counter data. those
used hp-internal tools so I'm just trying to get the i's crossed and t's
dotted first :) when I do, it will probably be at the url I can run
the whole document past bind-workers first as a sanity check before
going public (unless folks think it would be wrong to send the whole
thing to bind-workers...)

The user/kernel split was roughly 80/20. One thing I did notice was that
the number of select calls appears to match the number of transactions.
I'm guessing (without first looking at source :) that the tune from
8.2.2 to do multiple recvfrom's per select is not in the 9.1.0 bits -
not sure if it applies, but it might...

comments/suggestions welcome,

rick jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to email, OR post, but please do NOT do BOTH...
my email address is raj in the domain...

More information about the bind-workers mailing list