Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-16 Thread Klaus Darilion
Hi Remi! Am 14.08.2019 um 10:39 schrieb Remi Gacogne: > 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 >>

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-14 Thread Remi Gacogne
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

2019-08-14 Thread Remi Gacogne
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

2019-08-13 Thread Klaus Darilion
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

2019-08-12 Thread Gentian Bajraktari
Just did, its showing on metronome: Gentian-DNSDIST-TEST On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 10:16, Remi Gacogne wrote: > Hi Gentian, > > On 8/12/19 10:12 AM, Gentian Bajraktari wrote: > > I have attached results from resperf ( latest compiled, 2.3.1) and the > > configuration file (dnsdist.conf) > > Would

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-12 Thread Remi Gacogne
Hi Gentian, On 8/12/19 10:12 AM, Gentian Bajraktari wrote: > I have attached results from resperf ( latest compiled, 2.3.1) and the > configuration file (dnsdist.conf) Would you consider sending metrics to our public metronome server [1] so we understand what's the limiting factor during your

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-12 Thread Gentian Bajraktari
I have attached results from resperf ( latest compiled, 2.3.1) and the configuration file (dnsdist.conf) On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 22:30, Klaus Darilion wrote: > Am 08.08.2019 um 10:20 schrieb Gentian Bajraktari: > > Dear Dnsdist community, > > > > we are trying to setup dnsdist as a

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-12 Thread Gentian Bajraktari
Hi Klaus i have tried with adding listeners as well as adding same Bind server again, but results are the same, its very strange, i get better results hitting directly one Bind server rather then Dnsdist with 8 listerners and 8 servers ( 4 x Bind1 and 4x Bind2), and i have no other

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-11 Thread 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 of QPS as well? I just tested master on Arch using calidns and

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-10 Thread Klaus Darilion
Am 08.08.2019 um 10:20 schrieb Gentian Bajraktari: 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"})

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-08 Thread Gentian Bajraktari
Hi Remi, yes all servers are on VMware, 8 cpu, 8G Ram. OS is Centos ( Linux release 7.6.1810 (Core) 3.10.0-957.27.2.el7.x86_64) have disabled selinux and all firewall/iptables, performance on Bind (BIND 9.14.4 (Stable Release)) directly is 50-60K QPS sorry for the typo, i have tried

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2019-08-08 Thread Remi Gacogne
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

2019-08-08 Thread Remi Gacogne
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

Re: [dnsdist] dnsdist performance

2018-06-26 Thread Remi Gacogne
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

2018-06-19 Thread Nico
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

2017-04-06 Thread Nico
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

2017-04-03 Thread Nico
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