Max Clark wrote: > I recently ran a series of dns load tests against various dns servers > and have been greatly surprised by the results > (http://www.clarksys.com/2007/11/20/dns_load_testing_results/) - in > this test PDNS was slightly faster than TinyDNS and half as fast as > BIND. Because the query set was highly repetitive during the test I > would have expected PDNS to cache the results and serve subsequent > queries from this cache. That does not seem to have been the case > here. I am preparing a lab environment to run additional tests to > validate these initial results and would appreciate any input from the > PDNS community for configuration.
Oh and tinydns won't perform any/much better with a ram drive etc because it compresses the data file/memory to use less resources it will eat up all the CPU it can instead. -- Best regards, Duane http://www.freeauth.org - Enterprise Two Factor Authentication http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP "In the long run the pessimist may be proved right, but the optimist has a better time on the trip." _______________________________________________ Pdns-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
