> this is just a benchmark kind of stress test with authoritative records,
> query logging has been disabled.
Ok, so you're doing a purely local test, asking for local data as well,
eliminating any external network, but at the same time increasing the load
on the nameserver you're testing.
What k
this is just a benchmark kind of stress test with authoritative records, query
logging has been disabled.
Emil Natan
>run queryperf on the same server and got a not bad number at around 60,000
>qps,
>however, the cpu and memory are far from used up, what else could be the
>limiting factor
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:36 AM, ju wusuo wrote:
> run queryperf on the same server and got a not bad number at around 60,000
> qps, however, the cpu and memory are far from used up, what else could be
> the limiting factors for getting higher qps numbers?
>
>
> Logging. If query log is enabled i
no seems not the case as cpu is only at about 60%.
p...@mail.nsbeta.info wrote:
ju wusuo writes:
> run queryperf on the same server and got a not bad number at around 60,000
> qps,
>however, the cpu and memory are far from used up, what else could be the
>limiting factors for getting higher q
ju wusuo writes:
run queryperf on the same server and got a not bad number at around 60,000 qps,
however, the cpu and memory are far from used up, what else could be the
limiting factors for getting higher qps numbers?
rebuild bind and enable the threads?
__
run queryperf on the same server and got a not bad number at around 60,000 qps,
however, the cpu and memory are far from used up, what else could be the
limiting factors for getting higher qps numbers?
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@list
6 matches
Mail list logo
