I'm not a consumer of this and agree that it's up to users to speak up, so I'll stop here - with one final observation.
The issue comment containing the benchmarks includes: > Speedup provided by the |map| format does not seem significant enough > to warrant the complexity of map format, especially when we take into > account that the difference measured in terms of "real time" is in > order of 10s of seconds. 10s of seconds *per zone* can certainly add up. Call it 10 secs/zone * 100,000 zones = 1M sec / 3600 = 278 hrs *saved*. Suppose loading zones is not disk limited, and cores scale linearly (e.g. no lock conflicts & an index lets each core find a zone to work on for free). So give it 16 cores (each taking on one complete zone), and it's still 17 hrs saved. Real life won't be that efficient - meaning cores won't help that much. A new memory mapped data structure that didn't require "updating node pointers" (e.g. that used offsets instead of pointers) may be worth considering. In current hardware and with a decent compiler and coding, the apparent cost of this over absolute pointers may well be vanishingly small. OK, that was two. Timothe Litt ACM Distinguished Engineer -------------------------- This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views, if any, on the matters discussed. On 10-Sep-21 12:56, Victoria Risk wrote: > >>>> After all the "other improvements in performance" that you cited, >>>> what is the performance difference between map and the other formats? >>> >>> I don’t know that, to be honest. We don’t have the resources to >>> benchmark everything. Maybe someone on this list could? We would >>> also like to be able to embark on a wholesale update to the rbtdb >>> next year and this is the sort of thing that might complicate >>> refactoring unnecessarily. > > > I was wrong, and in fact we have benchmarked it. > See https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2882 > <https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2882> for details. > Map format is still faster than raw, but not so much faster that it > warrants retaining it, given it is riskier, harder to maintain and we > have no feedback from users that it is important to them. It also > seems not to work with large numbers of zones, (>100K) at least in > current versions of 9.11 and 9.16, which is further indication that it > isn’t in wide use or we would have had complaints. > > We also have discussed internally that there are other factors, other > than loading the zone files, that may have more impact on the time it > takes a BIND server to restart. > > If anyone out there is using it successfully, and wants us to keep > this feature, this would be the time to speak up! > > Thank you, > > Vicky
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
