headers
Thomas Klausner | 31 Mar 2008 23:08
Picon

ISC DNS performance test

ISC did a DNS performance test:
http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/ISC-TN-2008-1.html

The result was:
Linux Gentoo 2.6.20.7		93,000
Linux Fedora Core 2.6.20.7	87,000
FreeBSD-7-CURRENT 200708	84,000
FreeBSD-6-stable 200708		55,000
FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE		51,000
Solaris-10 DevelExpr 5/07	50,000
NetBSD-4.0-Beta 200708		42,000
OpenBSD 4.1-snap-20070427	35,000
Windows 2003 Server		22,000
Windows XP Pro64 5.2.3790 SP2	20,000

Cheers,
 Thomas
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hubert Feyrer | 31 Mar 2008 23:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: ISC DNS performance test

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> ISC did a DNS performance test:
> http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/ISC-TN-2008-1.html

I think we've all seen it, and we'd also all be very interested to see 
this repeated with very latest NetBSD-current -- too many things have 
changed in NetBSD that have been left out here.

  - Hubert
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jim Wise | 1 Apr 2008 17:31
Gravatar

Re: ISC DNS performance test


On Mar 31, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>> ISC did a DNS performance test:
>> http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/ISC-TN-2008-1.html
>
> I think we've all seen it, and we'd also all be very interested to  
> see this repeated with very latest NetBSD-current -- too many things  
> have changed in NetBSD that have been left out here.

Unless I'm mistaken, all OS versions used were from their respective  
release branches.  Since I don't _think_ we're advising people to use  
bleeding-edge -current for their production DNS servers, this seems  
reasonable.

If NetBSD 5.x will be an improvement in this regard, it's reasonable  
to ask for a rematch once 5.x is branched.

What are some of the changes since 4.0 which will make 5.x better in  
this regard?

--
				Jim Wise
				jwise <at> draga.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jason Thorpe | 9 Apr 2008 22:51

Re: ISC DNS performance test


On Apr 1, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Jim Wise wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Thomas Klausner wrote:
>>> ISC did a DNS performance test:
>>> http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/ISC-TN-2008-1.html
>>
>> I think we've all seen it, and we'd also all be very interested to  
>> see this repeated with very latest NetBSD-current -- too many  
>> things have changed in NetBSD that have been left out here.
>
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, all OS versions used were from their respective  
> release branches.

You're mistaken:

FreeBSD-7-CURRENT 200708	84,000

-- thorpej
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jim Wise | 10 Apr 2008 00:05
Gravatar

Re: ISC DNS performance test


On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>> Unless I'm mistaken, all OS versions used were from their  
>> respective release branches.
>
> You're mistaken:
>
> FreeBSD-7-CURRENT 200708	84,000

Hmm.  I guess I'm not very up with FreeBSD's naming scheme -- isn't  
this the release branch for 7.x -- analagous to NetBSD 4-BETA, which  
was also tested, but distinct from FreeBSD-CURRENT?

--
				Jim Wise
				jwise <at> draga.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Andrew Doran | 10 Apr 2008 01:31
Picon

Re: ISC DNS performance test

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:05:28PM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> >>Unless I'm mistaken, all OS versions used were from their  
> >>respective release branches.
> >
> >You're mistaken:
> >
> >FreeBSD-7-CURRENT 200708	84,000
> 
> Hmm.  I guess I'm not very up with FreeBSD's naming scheme -- isn't  
> this the release branch for 7.x -- analagous to NetBSD 4-BETA, which  
> was also tested, but distinct from FreeBSD-CURRENT?

I expect NetBSD-current would do better on this test than 4.0, although
there is still a lot we could do to improve the numbers on this particular
benchmark.

As far as I am aware an answering bind server communicates with the outside
world using a single UDP socket, which works somewhat in NetBSD's favour
given that our IP stack is single threaded at the moment.

Cheers,
Andrew
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alfred Perlstein | 10 Apr 2008 00:08

Re: ISC DNS performance test

* Jim Wise <jwise <at> draga.com> [080409 15:05] wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On Apr 9, 2008, at 4:51 PM, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> >>Unless I'm mistaken, all OS versions used were from their  
> >>respective release branches.
> >
> >You're mistaken:
> >
> >FreeBSD-7-CURRENT 200708	84,000
> 
> Hmm.  I guess I'm not very up with FreeBSD's naming scheme -- isn't  
> this the release branch for 7.x -- analagous to NetBSD 4-BETA, which  
> was also tested, but distinct from FreeBSD-CURRENT?

Typically something -CURRENT means "top of tree", but of course
you do need to check the date because eventually 7-CURRENT becomes
7-RELEASE and subsequently 7-STABLE.

--

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane