From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 5 18:38:20 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D55616A402 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:38:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dgilbert@daveg.ca) Received: from ox.eicat.ca (ox.eicat.ca [66.96.30.35]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1025213C481 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:38:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dgilbert@daveg.ca) Received: by ox.eicat.ca (Postfix, from userid 66) id A1977D67E; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by canoe.dclg.ca (Postfix, from userid 101) id 4732161C8A; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:38:25 -0500 (EST) From: David Gilbert MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17900.25505.245946.235433@canoe.dclg.ca> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:38:25 -0500 To: Dinesh Nair In-Reply-To: <20070228214200.60cc9b7a@prophet.alphaque.com> References: <20070224215508.GA41968@xor.obsecurity.org> <45E13410.7020505@he.iki.fi> <20070225071946.GA48242@xor.obsecurity.org> <45E14BAD.80909@he.iki.fi> <20070225084737.GA49231@xor.obsecurity.org> <5a0a9d6f0702260936u3408f8d8rd4cde9234b2f7776@mail.gmail.com> <45E54619.7000503@isc.org> <20070228214200.60cc9b7a@prophet.alphaque.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 20) "Double Solitaire" XEmacs Lucid Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UDP performance. X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:38:20 -0000 >>>>> "Dinesh" == Dinesh Nair writes: Dinesh> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:06:33 -0800, Peter Losher Dinesh> wrote: >> Ivan Voras wrote: >> >> > I agree in general, but MySQL performance is very exposed as an > >> advocacy issue - it has traditionally been the source of statements >> > like "FreeBSD's threading implementation is weak/bad/broken". >> >> And these days ISC can't consciously recommend FreeBSD for use on >> high-traffic DNS servers because UDP performance has (frankly) gone >> downhill since 5.x. [..snipped..] >> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2006-September/011748.html Dinesh> if UDP performance in 6.x and 7.x has dropped, this could even Dinesh> affect voip applications/servers such as asterisk when run on Dinesh> FreeBSD. most all use RTP for media traffic and RTP is nearly Dinesh> always UDP generating up to 50 packets per second per call per Dinesh> direction. Dinesh> 14,000+ packets per second is only about 140 calls. Well... again, BIND is not a good indicator of UDP performance. A non-trivial application can send and receive about 250k pps on moderate hardware. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can be | |Mail: dave@daveg.ca | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================