On 29.06.11 16:16, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
When i start Bind on server2 i do it with -n 4 ( to use 4 thread) and
on server1 i start bind with -n 8. And i see then on munin that the
load is shared on all cores.
start it with -n 4 on server 1 and see if there will be any
Zitat von Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Ryan Novosielski novos...@umdnj.edu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/28/2011 12:30 PM, David Sparro wrote:
On 6/28/2011 11:15 AM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm testing
== 7 qps
Test3: OS 64 bit, bind 32 bit == 5 qps
Regards
Issam Harrathi.
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:16:01 +0200
From: lst_ho...@kwsoft.de
Subject: Re: better performance with 32 bit ! why?
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Message-ID: 20110629091601.30282lyntw1u4...@webmail.kwsoft.de
The 64 bit server(server1) is faster than the 32 bit server (server2).
Tests:
Test1: OS 64 bit, bind 64 bit == 5 qps server1
Test2: OS 32 bit, bind 32 bit == 7 qps server2
Test3: OS 64 bit, bind 32 bit == 5 qps server1
--
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011
iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
The 64 bit server(server1) is faster than the 32 bit server (server2).
Really? I thought you said the 64 bit server had a CPU with 1.6GHz cores,
and the 32 bit server had 2.33GHz cores?
Regards
Eivind Olsen
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32 bit)
i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
Regards
Issam Harrathi.
The 64 bit server(server1) is faster than the 32 bit
Issam Harrathi wrote:
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32
bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
You can only do maths like that if you assume that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Not necessarily. They are not apples to apples. Multi-core machines only
excel at multi-threaded computational loads. I don't know how BIND does
or does not qualify. I suspect, however, there may be some other
differences between the two chips anyhow
Zitat von iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com:
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on
server2(32 bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
This would only apply for
It would be interesting to hear what kind of lookup that you did for
your test. Did the servers just answer from configured zones? Would
recursion make any difference on the utilization of the cores? And
validation? Or is four fast cores always better than many slower cores?
Mats
Not neccessarily.
It really depends on many many things. How well does the OS kernel+NIC
driver scale, how good do they work in balancing among all CPUs+cores.
I do not know the inner workings of bind, but depending on the algorithmic
problems, distributed/parallel processing can even degrade
When i start Bind on server2 i do it with -n 4 ( to use 4 thread) and on
server1 i start bind with -n 8. And i see then on munin that the load is shared
on all cores.
For the load-server it's another server let's call it server 3. I know that
tcpreplay is monothread so i lunch 2*25000 qps for
On 29.06.11 15:33, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on
server2(32 bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz. means 8*1.6
Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
It was already
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:33 PM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32
bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
-frankfurt.de'; 'Ryan Novosielski'; 'eiv...@aminor.no';
'dufb...@telia.net'; 'lst_ho...@kwsoft.de'
Cc : 'bind-users@lists.isc.org'
Objet : Re: better performance with 32 bit ! why?
When i start Bind on server2 i do it with -n 4 ( to use 4 thread) and on
server1 i start bind with -n 8. And i see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 8:19 AM, Eivind Olsen wrote:
Really? I thought you said the 64 bit server had a CPU with 1.6GHz cores,
and the 32 bit server had 2.33GHz cores?
Benchmarking on different machine types, even if they are identical
speed, can be affected by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 9:08 AM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
Maybe some bind developer can shed a light on this:
Does bind use epoll()?
AIO (as in Posix RT extensions)
BIND 9 uses epoll() I believe, but AFAIK does not touch AIO. I've not
touched that code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 9:16 AM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Do i have to use bind compiled and running on 32 bit server to have
better performance rather than bind compiled and running on 64 bit server?
No matter what, what gets you the best
with 32 bit ! why?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Not necessarily. They are not apples to apples. Multi-core machines only
excel at multi-threaded computational loads. I don't know how BIND does
or does not qualify. I suspect, however, there may be some other
differences between the two
Thanks for that insight. I already considered something like the 'single
core per udp socket' problem.
One thing that just popped up my mind:
Does it increase performance, when you, let's say, bind multiple IPs to
the same NIC and make bind listen to all of those IPs, while of course
taking care
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 3:00 PM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
One thing that just popped up my mind:
Does it increase performance, when you, let's say, bind multiple IPs to
the same NIC and make bind listen to all of those IPs, while of course
taking care to fix the
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Ryan Novosielski
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:59 AM
To: iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: better performance with 32 bit ! why?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 4:28 PM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
P.S.: If all parts of bind were optimized towards multicore processing and
the pattern of queries fits, yes, then the 8 core machine could probably
outrun the 4 core machine, even when having a slower
Michael Graff wrote:
We hope to improve this in 9.9 or at the latest 9.10, and have something
that can saturate all CPUs. And no, we're not cracking RSA keys on the
extra CPUs just to keep them busy!
Pre-populating a small /56 IPv6 prefix with PTRs? :-)
I'm looking forward to what you're
Hi all,
I'm testing the same version of bind 9.4-ESV-R4-P1 on two server, one is a 32
bit (on which i have a redhat 32 bit) and the second a 64 bit server on which
i have a redhat 64 bit.
on the 32 bit i reach 7 qps but on the 64 bit i only reach 5 qps
(using resperf) and also with
On 6/28/2011 11:15 AM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm testing the same version of bind 9.4-ESV-R4-P1 on two server, one is
a 32 bit (on which i have a redhat 32 bit) and the second a 64 bit
server on which i have a redhat 64 bit.
on the 32 bit i reach 7 qps but on the 64
iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Is it normal that bind when compiled and installed on a 32 bit server have
better performance than bind when compiled and installed on a 64 bit
server.
the only différence between the two server is 64 bit vs 32 bit ( same RAM,
same Disk, same NIC,...)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/28/2011 12:30 PM, David Sparro wrote:
On 6/28/2011 11:15 AM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm testing the same version of bind 9.4-ESV-R4-P1 on two server, one is
a 32 bit (on which i have a redhat 32 bit) and the second a
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Ryan Novosielski novos...@umdnj.edu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/28/2011 12:30 PM, David Sparro wrote:
On 6/28/2011 11:15 AM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm testing the same version of bind 9.4-ESV-R4-P1 on
29 matches
Mail list logo
