Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/21/2013 9:35 AM:
On 21/11/13 14:57, - wrote:
Are others seeing the named process run at 130-180% on RHEL 6? We've
No. Our RHEL6 boxes rune fine.
Fine here as well...
Here is a decently busy CentOS 6 system w/ latest BIND from RPM, 2x Xeon
CPU E5-2640 (the cores typically run at 1200MHz).
1 [||||||||||||| 24.7%] 13
[||||||| 12.1%] Tasks: 411, 107
thr, 446 kthr; 5 running
2 [|||||| 10.2%] 14
[|| 1.3%] Load average:
0.71 0.83 0.90
3 [|||| 6.5%] 15
[||| 4.5%]
4 [||| 4.5%] 16
[|||| 6.4%]
5 [||| 4.4%] 17
[|| 1.9%]
6 [| 0.6%] 18
[|| 3.2%]
7 [||| 3.8%] 19
[|| 2.5%]
8 [| 0.6%] 20
[| 0.6%]
9 [|| 1.3%] 21
[ 0.0%]
10 [ 0.0%] 22
[ 0.0%]
11 [||||||| 10.8%] 23
[| 0.6%]
12 [ 0.0%] 24
[ 0.0%]
Mem[|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||34455/64375MB]
Swp[ 0/9607MB]
PID USER PRI NI VIRT RES SHR S CPU% MEM% TIME+ Command
1862 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 10.8 0.3 46:47.44 ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1888 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 5:11.81 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1887 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 0:07.57 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1886 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.64 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1885 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.95 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1884 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.78 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1883 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.46 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1882 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.81 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1881 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 1.3 0.3 1:43.79 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1880 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.49 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1879 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.51 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1878 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.71 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1877 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.73 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1876 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.78 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1875 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.49 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1874 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.68 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1873 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 1.3 0.3 1:43.57 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1872 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.92 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1871 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.60 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1870 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.68 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1869 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.87 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1868 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.43 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1867 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.68 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1866 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.42 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1865 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.0 0.3 1:43.49 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1864 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.49 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
1863 named 20 0 1960M 203M 2900 S 0.6 0.3 1:43.76 │ └─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
And here's a less loaded CentOS 5 server (2x Xeon E5620 which typically
runs at 1600MHz per core):
1 [ 0.0%] Tasks: 1962, 64 thr; 2 running
2 [||||| 4.2%] Load average: 0.48 0.44 0.50
3 [|| 1.2%]
4 [| 0.6%]
5 [ 0.0%]
6 [ 0.0%]
7 [| 0.6%]
8 [|| 1.2%]
9 [ 0.0%]
10 [||||||||||| 9.0%]
11
[||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
84.4%]
12 [|| 1.2%]
13 [| 0.6%]
14 [|| 1.2%]
15 [| 0.6%]
16 [|||| 2.4%]
Mem[|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||12019/24096MB]
Swp[| 4/1027MB]
PID USER PRI NI VIRT RES SHR S CPU% MEM% TIME+ Command
21487 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 2.0 0.4 51h46:59 ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21505 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 6h19:07 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21504 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 16:25.89 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21503 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:38 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21502 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:35 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21501 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:36 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21500 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:00 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21499 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:33 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21498 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:13 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21497 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:31 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21496 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:40 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21495 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:32 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21494 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:28 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21493 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:32 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21492 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:32 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21491 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:30 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21490 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:26 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21489 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h49:38 │ ├─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
21488 named 15 0 637M 101M 2020 S 0.0 0.4 2h48:55 │ └─
/usr/sbin/named -u named
I would not directly compare the loads between these systems because
they have a different workload and different versions of BIND. Roughly
speaking, I would estimate the CentOS 6 system has ~ 5x the workload.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
