Thanks for the response, but you're answering a different question than
I asked. :) The question I'm interested in is, Why is the recursive
server not pegging the CPU?
I should have quoted Sten's context. If the recursive answer
contains additional data, that may contributing to the time
On 12.01.14 17:16, Doug Barton wrote:
Without going into too much detail, doing some performance testing
and am seeing a weird result. On the same systems authoritative
queries will happily peg the CPU. However when running recursive
queries (with a small zone, all data cached before testing)
On 13/01/14 01:16, Doug Barton wrote:
Howdy,
Without going into too much detail, doing some performance testing and
am seeing a weird result. On the same systems authoritative queries will
happily peg the CPU. However when running recursive queries (with a
small zone, all data cached before
Howdy,
Without going into too much detail, doing some performance testing and
am seeing a weird result. On the same systems authoritative queries will
happily peg the CPU. However when running recursive queries (with a
small zone, all data cached before testing) the CPU never gets above
80%.
Wild guess: network bandwidth runs out before CPU? Why the difference, I
have no clue.
On 13/01/14 02.16, Doug Barton wrote:
Howdy,
Without going into too much detail, doing some performance testing and
am seeing a weird result. On the same systems authoritative queries
will happily peg the
Thanks for the response, but that's not it. The auth-only responses are
generating a lot more traffic than the recursive.
Doug
On 01/12/2014 05:21 PM, Sten Carlsen wrote:
Wild guess: network bandwidth runs out before CPU? Why the difference, I
have no clue.
On 13/01/14 02.16, Doug Barton
Are you allowing long answers when authoritative? Performance measurements
with and without additional data in responses is measurable (imo around 12%
more network traffic from the replies on auth-only servers).
hth,
Len
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:54 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
Thanks for the response, but you're answering a different question than
I asked. :) The question I'm interested in is, Why is the recursive
server not pegging the CPU? I'm aware that there will be a difference
in qps between auth-only and recursive, but the recursive server seems
to be
=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+stuart.browne=ausregistry.com...@lists.isc.org]
On Behalf Of Doug Barton
Sent: Monday, 13 January 2014 1:11 PM
To: Leonard Mills; bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Generic reasons for recursive performance not to peg CPU?
Thanks
In article mailman.2014.1389579103.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
Thanks for the response, but you're answering a different question than
I asked. :) The question I'm interested in is, Why is the recursive
server not pegging the CPU? I'm aware that
On 01/12/2014 07:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article mailman.2014.1389579103.20661.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
Thanks for the response, but you're answering a different question than
I asked. :) The question I'm interested in is, Why is the recursive
11 matches
Mail list logo
