From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 28 13:44:42 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 5F48316A402 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:44:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [64.129.166.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A2A13C442 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:44:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l1SD81Hv086270; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:08:10 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <45E57EB5.4070703@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:08:05 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070204) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Losher 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> In-Reply-To: <45E54619.7000503@isc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.4/2679/Wed Feb 28 05:58:10 2007 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=8.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.6 (2006-10-03) on mh1.centtech.com 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: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:44:42 -0000 On 02/28/07 03:06, Peter Losher 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. > > We recently put a stock Fedora Core 6 and a stock FreeBSD 6.2 on the > same HW (HP ProLiant DL320 G5 Dual Core Xeons w/ 16GB RAM) and running > BIND 9.4.0 and a well known ccTLD zone that we slammed a query stream > to. On a single threaded BIND, there was a 20% advantage to Linux, on a > multi threaded build, Linux trounced FreeBSD (39k to 89k queries/sec) > > There's also been other analysis done by Marcelo Amarai @ Registro.br > that was posted to freebsd-net back last September. > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2006-September/011748.html > > I know there have been some discussion between some of the FreeBSD folks > and my colleague Mark Andrews about improving BIND's performance on > FreeBSD. Is there anything coming down the pipeline that will help stem > this tide in 7.x? > > -Peter I wonder if the recent work done for mysql would help here or not? I'm guessing the socket work would most likely help, but that's merely a guess. BIND is an important piece of infrastructure code, and because it comes with FreeBSD base OS, maybe it should next on the performance hit list? Eric