From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 9 10:39:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCC9106564A; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:39:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC62D8FC12; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAAE665E; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EA170874B; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:39:37 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Gabor Kovesdan References: <4FF2E00E.2030502@FreeBSD.org> <86bojxow6x.fsf@ds4.des.no> <89AB703D-E075-4AAC-AC1B-B358CC4E4E7F@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8C3A1.9080805@FreeBSD.org> <4FF9ECB5.5090507@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:39:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4FF9ECB5.5090507@FreeBSD.org> (Gabor Kovesdan's message of "Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:25:25 +0200") Message-ID: <863951nrpy.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , Doug Barton , FreeBSD Hackers , freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:39:39 -0000 Gabor Kovesdan writes: > Other than the functionality, when we replace something, it is also > important to do some benchmarks and assure that the performance is not > reasonably worse. Some time back I committed the error of not > carefully pass this requirement with BSD grep but so far it seems it > went fine with the recent BSD sort change. It would be nice to also > ensure this with the unbound change if it really happens. What sort of benchmarks do you envision? Unlike named, unbound is intended to serve only one client (localhost) or a small number of clients (a SOHO). With that kind of load, one could be ten times slower than the other and you wouldn't notice, because other factors, like network latency, completely dwarf the time the nameserver itself spends servicing a request. (note that I fully expect unbound to hold its own on corporate networks with thousands of clients, but I doubt my boss is going to let me run performance comparisons on the university's network) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no