From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 13 14:15:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E41616A407 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:15:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcelo@registro.br) Received: from clone.registro.br (clone.registro.br [200.160.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE7B43D46 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:15:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcelo@registro.br) Received: by clone.registro.br (Postfix, from userid 1014) id 097DE2A418; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:15:40 -0300 (BRT) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:15:40 -0300 From: Marcelo Gardini do Amaral To: John Dickinson Message-ID: <20060913141540.GK63300@registro.br> References: <20060911195521.GD63300@registro.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DNS query performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:15:42 -0000 Hi John, > I have not had time to fully investigate this issue but it appeared that > some queries from queryperf never made it out of the FreeBSD 6.1 box. When > I ran netstat -s -p udp I saw that that the numbers for delivered and > datagrams output differed by the number of queries that queryperf was > reporting as lost. However I am yet to figure out what this means. With my FreeBSD 4.11 client box the number of queries lost in the queryperf is the same as the reported by netstat command. I made a new test in another hardware, because with HP Blade Proliant is impossible to add an aditional NIC: there isn't any PCI slot and the bge interfaces are onboard. So, I used a Dell 1750, Xeon 3.06GHz with 'bge' interfaces onboard and an 'em' inserted in a slot, both running at 1Gbit/s. The results, for the same zone and queries: queries/s Server NIC F4.11-UP F6.1-UP F6.1-SMP ------ --- -------- ------- -------- bind bge 24846 15900 14700 em 22703 18800 17477 nsd bge 58948 18000 14009 em 67454 42000 35571 In general, em has a better performance than bge. But the performance on F6.1 is not so good if compared with F4.11, even for em interface. This is very vivid for NSD 3.0.1 results. On F4.11, the bge has a performance around 3 times better than F6.1. em is at least 1.5 times better. On F6.1, em has a performance about twice better than bge. On F4.11, there is no such big difference - just about 20% With this numbers, I think I can say there are something wrong with bge driver and also with F6.1 branch, because I didn't get similar results, even with em NIC. -- Att., Marcelo Gardini