From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 20 21:54:51 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from hand.dotat.at (sfo-gw.covalent.net [207.44.198.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A03437B4CF for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:54:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from fanf by hand.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.15 #3) id 13y6Na-0004dv-00; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 05:54:06 +0000 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 05:54:06 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: David Miller Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UDP limits in dns server? Message-ID: <20001121055406.H54653@hand.dotat.at> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: Organization: Covalent Technologies, Inc Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG David Miller wrote: > >I'm looking up the IP addresses with up to 1500 or so processes each >taking a list of addresses and running gethostbyaddr() on them. That's stupid. Use adns instead. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ian/adns/ >I'm particularly perplexed that a K6-200 system I had was cpu bound >running named and achieved ~200 resolves/sec; my spiffy new 1100 MHz >K7 is struggling to double it. You should be able to acheive that perfomance with one process running adns. You should be able to do much better if you add a cache (even quite a small one), since IP addresses in web logs are quite repetitive. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch dot@dotat.at fanf@covalent.net Chad for President! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message