Question!

[이원영(IP망설계팀)]

Hello,

Thank you for your answer.
We used Cent OS 5 and Linux 2.6.18-348 kernal
We tested in the laboratory and connected with server directly.

Best regards,
Wonyoung, Lee


-----Original Message-----
From: bind-workers [mailto:bind-workers-bounces at lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Cathy Almond
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:48 PM
To: bind-workers at lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Question!

On 09/02/2017 08:23, 이원영(IP망설계팀) wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> We have DNS servers (Venders are Dell & HP & Fujitsu)
>
> Recently, we upgraded bind version from 9.9.8-P3 to 9.9.9-P4.
>
> We find out server query performance droped from our test.(Used DNS
> perf. program)
>
> Especially, dell server droped minus 61%.
>
> I wonder why server performance droped.
>
> And why dell server droped high percentage than HP servers.
>
>
>
> ㅇServer performance test result (Based Maximum Unique Query/Sec)
>
> - server name (CPU spec):               Bind 9.9.8-P3 -> Bind 9.9.9-P4
>
>  - HP DL360 G5 (3.0Ghz dual*2) :     10,000pps ->   6,896pps (-31%)
>
> - HP DL360 G7 (2.17Ghz 4core*1) : 14,000pps -> 13,938pps
>
> - HP DL380 G7 (2.4Ghz 4core*2):    14,000pps -> 14,262pps
>
> - HP DL360 G8 (2.3Ghz 6core*1):    24,000pps -> 21,318pps (-11%)
>
> - Dell R610 (2.27Ghz 4core*2):         17,000pps->   6,557pps (-61%)
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Wonyoung, Lee
>


Hi,

This is surprising.  Can you give us the details of your set-up for performance-measuring?

Then some sanity-checking questions to make sure that the anomalies are not due to other differences.

1.  Not directly performance-related, but I would anyway recommend
9.9.9-P6 over 9.9.9-P4 - you'll be getting several security fixes, some of them more important than others.

2.  You didn't mention which OS and kernel you're running - please provide those for each box.

3.  Make sure that you have a threaded build.  If this didn't happen automatically, then when building BIND, use --enable-threads with ./configure.
https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-00630/0

4.  Check that all the versions that you're comparing are running with the same values of -n (number of worker threads).

(We changed the default for -n between versions, so if you're defaulting you may not be comparing like with like - although I admit I have not minutely checked what changes we made when.  The start up logs will tell you how many worker threads named has started with.)

5.  Check what value of -U (number of UDP listeners) named has defaulted to using with the 9.9.9 builds.  You may need to adjust your startup options.

https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-00629/0/Performance%3A-Multi-threaded-I-O.html

Having multiple UDP listeners is good for avoiding an i/o throughput bottle-neck in many situations, but if you already had the workaround of configuring multiple virtual interfaces on the same NIC, could have the opposite effect by creating more UDP listeners than you actually need.

Tuning both -n and -U to optimise performance for your specific set up falls into a bit of a 'black arts and try it and see' category - it's worth some experimentation because the defaults are not correct for everyone (and what we set as the defaults are therefore a necessary compromise).

See:
https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01249/0/UDP-Listeners-choosing-the-right-value-for-U-when-starting-named.html

Kind regards,

Cathy Almond
ISC Support

_______________________________________________
bind-workers mailing list
bind-workers at lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-workers


이 메일은 지정된 수취인만을 위해 작성되었으며, 중요한 정보나 저작권을 포함하고 있을 수 있습니다. 어떠한 권한 없이, 본 문서에 포함된 정보의 전부 또는 일부를 무단으로 제3자에게 공개, 배포, 복사 또는 사용하는 것을 엄격히 금지합니다. 만약, 본 메일이 잘못 전송된 경우, 발신인 또는 당사에 알려주시고, 본 메일을 즉시 삭제하여 주시기 바랍니다.
This E-mail may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. This email is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you receive this email by mistake, please either delete it without reproducing, distributing or retaining copies thereof or notify the sender immediately.