tuning for maximum dhcp performance
David W. Hankins
David_Hankins at isc.org
Fri Apr 25 21:03:52 UTC 2008
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:47:02PM -0400, Dan wrote:
> I would still prefer keeping the fsync, although I'd be curious to know how
> many people are running systems without the fsync or on a ramdrive.
you might try 3.1.0a1, esp. if you have a benchmarking rig still
setup and reusable.
it batches replies to DHCPREQUESTs around a single fsync, rather
than keeping it 1:1. failover is known broken on it ("alpha
quality"). i'm still working on reintegrating failover with the new
fsync changes; i want to get failover performing better while I'm
at it (it always delayed syncs, but it takes 2 seconds to bother
sending bndacks, that sort of thing).
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
More information about the dhcp-users