Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi Gentian, On 8/12/19 10:20 AM, Gentian Bajraktari wrote: > Just did, its showing on metronome: Gentian-DNSDIST-TEST Thank you, I see it! Unfortunately it looks like your test was quite short and metronome reduces the precision after a few hours so I'm not sure I see the whole picture, but it

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi Klaus, On 8/13/19 9:31 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote: > My results were: > 1 VM with 4vCPUs. The VM runs NSD and PDNS/PGSQL. DNSDIST forwards some > zones to NSD, others to PDNS/PGSQL > > PDNS with cached responses: 40.000 q/s > PDNS random labels: 9.000 q/s > NSD: 65.000 q/s > > 1. dnsdist with

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi Remi! Am 11.08.2019 um 18:26 schrieb Remi Gacogne: > Hi Klaus, > > On 8/10/19 10:30 PM, Klaus Darilion wrote: >> I had similar results. Starting 4 listening threads and 4 receivers >> threads (by adding the same backend 4 times) boosted my performance - >> almost linear. > > Similar in terms

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Please keep replying to the mailing-list instead of replying to me directly, as your answers might help others. I have not included your message because I'm not sure what you expected to share publicly, but we only do non-public support for customers [1]. Would you consider sending metrics to our

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi Gentian, On 8/8/19 10:20 AM, Gentian Bajraktari wrote: > but when we test with resperf (from dnsperf tool), the results are very > bad for DNSDIST, around 5-15K QPS , while when we test directly to one > of BIND ip addresses the QPS goes up to 50-60Qps. Those are very low numbers, for dnsdist

[dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Dear Dnsdist community, we are trying to setup dnsdist as a loadbalancer for 2 bind recursive cache only servers, we have done a very simple setup: addLocal("DNSDIST_IP") newServer({address="BIND_IP1"}) newServer({address=" BIND_IP2"}) setServerPolicy(roundrobin) but when we test with resperf

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi Nico, On 06/19/2018 10:42 PM, Nico wrote: > We upgraded to 1.3, everything fine. > Redid our test with the following results: > # procs  # listeners kq/s > > % no error >

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Just a follow-up on this. We upgraded to 1.3, everything fine. Redid our test with the following results: # procs # listenerskq/s % no error

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi Remi, Yes, the new version was almost 30% better in the full config test. Great! > So quite a noticeable gain but it looks like lock contention is still an > issue. I would like to understand why, if you don't mind answering a few > questions. > > - You mentioned having 32 cores, are they real

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi, thanks for you fast reply, but i think that setMaxUDPOutstanding relates to queries pending from backend servers to dnsdist. My tests are almost all serviced from cache. On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Aleš Rygl wrote: > > > We can't get more than 120/150 kqps > > We don't

[dnsdist] dnsdist performance

Hi! We found dnsdist very useful and interesting and using it in a couple of configurations. Now we are testing dnsdist to find the best tuning for our setup, and we find the performance is not what we expected (based on what we saw in presentations) We can't get more than 120/150 kqps We don't