Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:46:01 +0900 From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Oliver Herold <oliver@akephalos.de>, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 Message-ID: <d763ac660802271746l229c1e1hca44db5438e142e9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47C59591.6040600@errno.com> References: <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCIEGKCFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <47C59591.6040600@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Sorry for top posting.)
Its not actually -that- bad an idea to compare different applications.
It sets the "bar" for how far the entire system {hardware, OS,
application, network} can be pushed.
If nsd beats bind9 by say 5 or 10% over all, then its nothing to write
home about. If nsd beats bind9 by 50% and shows similar
kernel/interrupt space time use then thats something to stare at. Even
if its just because nsd 'does less' and gives more CPU time to
system/interrupt processing you've identified that the system -can- be
pushed harder, and perhaps working with the bind9 guys a little more
can identify what they're doing wrong.
Thats how I noticed the performance differences between various
platforms running Squid a few years ago - for example, gettimeofday()
being called way, way too frequently - and I compare Squid's
kernel/interrupt time; syscall footprint; hwpmc/oprofile traces; etc
against other proxy-capable applications (varnish, lighttpd, apache)
to see exactly what they're doing differently.
2c,
adrian
On 28/02/2008, Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Kris Kennaway
> >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:18 PM
> >> To: Oliver Herold; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org;
> >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
> >> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
> >>
> >>
> >> Oliver Herold wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I saw this bind benchmarks just some minutes ago,
> >>>
> >>> http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html
> >>>
> >>> is this true for FreeBSD 7 (current state: RELENG_7/7.0R) too? Or is
> >>> this something verified only for the state of development back in August
> >>> 2007?
> >>>
> >> I have been trying to replicate this. ISC have kindly given me access
> >> to their test data but I am seeing Linux performing much slower than
> >> FreeBSD with the same ISC workload.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Kris,
> >
> > Every couple years we go through this with ISC. They come out with
> > a new version of BIND then claim that nothing other than Linux can
> > run it well. I've seen this nonsense before and it's tiresome.
> >
> > Incidentally, the query tool they used, queryperf, has been changed
> > to dnsperf. Someone needs to look at that port - /usr/ports/dns/dnsperf -
> > as it has a build depend of bind9 - well bind 9.3.4 is part of 6.3-RELEASE
> > and I was rather irked when I ran the dnsperf port maker and the
> > maker stupidly began the process of downloading and building the
> > same version of BIND that I was already running on my server.
> >
> >
> >> * I am trying to understand what is different about the ISC
> >> configuration but have not yet found the cause.
> >>
> >
> > It's called "Anti-FreeBSD bias". You won't find anything.
> >
> >
> >> e.g. NSD
> >> (ports/dns/nsd) is a much faster and more scalable DNS server than BIND
> >> (because it is better optimized for the smaller set of features it
> >> supports).
> >>
> >>
> >
> > When you make remarks like that it's no wonder ISC is in the business
> > of slamming FreeBSD. People used to make the same claims about djbdns
> > but I noticed over the last few years they don't seem to be doing
> > that anymore.
> >
> > If nsd is so much better than yank bind out of the base FreeBSD and
> > replace it with nsd. Of course that will make more work for me
> > when I regen our nameservers here since nsd will be the first thing
> > on the "rm" list.
> >
>
>
> Please save your rhetoric for some other forum. The ISC folks have been
> working with us to understand what's going on. I'm not aware of any
> anit-FreeBSD slams going on; mostly uninformed comments.
>
> We believe FreeBSD does very well in any comparisons of the sort being
> discussed and there's still lots of room for improvement.
>
> As to nsd vs bind, understand they are very different applications w/
> totally different goals. Comparing performance is not entirely fair and
> certainly is difficult. Kris investigated the performance of nsd mostly
> to understand how bind might scale if certain architectural changes were
> made to eliminate known bottlenecks in the application.
>
>
> Sam
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
--
Adrian Chadd - adrian@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660802271746l229c1e1hca44db5438e142e9>