Zitat von Kevin Oberman :
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/28/2011 12:30 PM, David Sparro wrote:
On 6/28/2011 11:15 AM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm testing the same version of bind 9.4-ESV-R4
On 06/28/2011 09:54 PM, Stefan Certic wrote:
I am more looking for a solution to read data with perl and convert to some
native data structure, like hash reference, or multidimenzional array, so i
can access and change data in form of: $named_conf_file->{view1}-{zoneblah} =
'somedata' and then du
Thanks for the answer,
@ Andreas i made the test and i have the same performance as OS 64 bind 64.
NB: when i reach the maximum throughput i still have enough free RAM, free CPU,
free NIC capacity. So the limit is in Bind. What to do to reach more capacity?
Tests:
Test1: OS 64 bit, bind 64 bit ==
-Message d'origine-
De : HARRATHI Issam Ext OLNC/DPS
Envoyé : mercredi 29 juin 2011 11:04
À : 'novos...@umdnj.edu'; 'lst_ho...@kwsoft.de'; 'kob6...@gmail.com'
Cc : 'bind-users@lists.isc.org'
Objet : RE: bind-users Digest, Vol 902, Issue 1
Thanks for the answer,
@ Andreas i made the te
On 24.06.11 13:39, David Coulthart wrote:
Currently the two recursive caching nameservers for clients on our
network are also authoritative for a few zones. In particular, they
are authoritative for:
1) our main forward zone (columbia.edu) in order to provide an
internal view of the zone
On 29.06.11 11:04, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
@ Andreas i made the test and i have the same performance as OS 64 bind 64.
NB: when i reach the maximum throughput i still have enough free RAM,
free CPU, free NIC capacity. So the limit is in Bind. What to do to
reach more capacit
The 64 bit server(server1) is faster than the 32 bit server (server2).
>Tests:
>Test1: OS 64 bit, bind 64 bit ==> 5 qps server1
>Test2: OS 32 bit, bind 32 bit ==> 7 qps server2
>Test3: OS 64 bit, bind 32 bit ==> 5 qps server1
--
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 29 Ju
iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> The 64 bit server(server1) is faster than the 32 bit server (server2).
Really? I thought you said the 64 bit server had a CPU with 1.6GHz cores,
and the 32 bit server had 2.33GHz cores?
Regards
Eivind Olsen
_
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32 bit)
i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
Regards
Issam Harrathi.
> The 64 bit server(server1) is faster than the 32 bit s
On Jun 29, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> Or use Config::Parser, or adapt the script I sent round (which in fact was
> the reason I wrote it); tokenisation of the bind config file is easy, and the
> core grammar is straightforward because everything is ;-terminated, with the
> form:
>
Issam Harrathi wrote:
> on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32
> bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
> means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
> 8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
You can only do maths like that if you assume that eve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Not necessarily. They are not apples to apples. Multi-core machines only
excel at multi-threaded computational loads. I don't know how BIND does
or does not qualify. I suspect, however, there may be some other
differences between the two chips anyhow (
Zitat von iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com:
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on
server2(32 bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
This would only apply for applicat
It would be interesting to hear what kind of lookup that you did for
your test. Did the servers just answer from configured zones? Would
recursion make any difference on the utilization of the cores? And
validation? Or is four fast cores always better than many slower cores?
Mats
iharrathi@
On 06/29/2011 02:37 PM, Chris Buxton wrote:
Not entirely. There is at least one construct that looks like this (using your
terms):
thing+ block thing block semicolon
For example, within the controls statement:
inet * allow { trusted; } keys { some.key; };
Good point.
__
Not neccessarily.
It really depends on many many things. How well does the OS kernel+NIC
driver scale, how good do they work in balancing among all CPUs+cores.
I do not know the inner workings of bind, but depending on the algorithmic
problems, distributed/parallel processing can even degrade per
When i start Bind on server2 i do it with -n 4 ( to use 4 thread) and on
server1 i start bind with -n 8. And i see then on munin that the load is shared
on all cores.
For the load-server it's another server let's call it server 3. I know that
tcpreplay is monothread so i lunch 2*25000 qps for ex
On 29.06.11 15:33, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on
server2(32 bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz. means 8*1.6
Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
It was already expl
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:33 PM, wrote:
> on server1(64 bit) i have 2 Intel E5310 quad-core 1.6Ghz and on server2(32
> bit) i have 2 Intel Xeon dual-core 2.33Ghz.
> means 8*1.6 Ghz on server1 and 4*2.33 on server2.
>
> 8*1.6 is better and faster than 4*2.33, no?
Sometimes I wonder if people REAL
As asked, i will made a test with os 32 bit on the same server as the the 64
bit, and will post this result here.
Thanks for all for your answers.
Regards.
Issam Harrathi.
De : HARRATHI Issam Ext OLNC/DPS
Envoyé : mercredi 29 juin 2011 16:17
À : 's...@whgl.uni-fra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 8:19 AM, Eivind Olsen wrote:
> Really? I thought you said the 64 bit server had a CPU with 1.6GHz cores,
> and the 32 bit server had 2.33GHz cores?
Benchmarking on different machine types, even if they are identical
speed, can be affected b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We've been working on the start-up time of BIND 9, when many many zones
are configured.
By many, I mean in the 10k to 1m range.
If you are someone who has a large number of zones loaded into BIND 9,
and would like to try out some test code to see if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 9:08 AM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
> Maybe some bind developer can shed a light on this:
> Does bind use epoll()?
> AIO (as in Posix RT extensions)
BIND 9 uses epoll() I believe, but AFAIK does not touch AIO. I've not
touched that code recen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 9:16 AM, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> Do i have to use bind compiled and running on 32 bit server to have
> better performance rather than bind compiled and running on 64 bit server?
No matter what, what gets you the best perfo
I'm not sure I agree with that - multiple single threaded processes can
be distributed across cores/CPUs. That is to say ONE single thread
process doesn't gain from multiple cores but more than one can because
they don't have to compete against each other on the same core.
-Original Message-
Thanks for that insight. I already considered something like the 'single
core per udp socket' problem.
One thing that just popped up my mind:
Does it increase performance, when you, let's say, bind multiple IPs to
the same NIC and make bind listen to all of those IPs, while of course
taking care t
Hello world,
I'm having a problem with a single authoritative server that seems to
not receive a signed zone.
I used www.zonecheck.fr to check the zones incertum.net and
billigmail.org and it complains that ns3.wars-nicht.de doesn't have a
signed SOA. I already tried increasing the serial for tho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 3:00 PM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
> One thing that just popped up my mind:
> Does it increase performance, when you, let's say, bind multiple IPs to
> the same NIC and make bind listen to all of those IPs, while of course
> taking care to fix
That is, if all of those threads have work to do, because the task can be
distributed accordingly. Which is not easy even if you know the number of
cores (threads for that matter) and the whole task is known a priori.
Unfortunately Queries to a DNS-Server like bind do not follow parameters
known a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/11 4:28 PM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
> P.S.: If all parts of bind were optimized towards multicore processing and
> the pattern of queries fits, yes, then the 8 core machine could probably
> outrun the 4 core machine, even when having a slower cl
Michael Graff wrote:
> We hope to improve this in 9.9 or at the latest 9.10, and have something
> that can saturate all CPUs. And no, we're not cracking RSA keys on the
> extra CPUs just to keep them busy!
Pre-populating a small /56 IPv6 prefix with PTRs? :-)
I'm looking forward to what you're
On 06/29/2011 10:57 PM, Stefan Foerster wrote:
> ...it complains that ns3.wars-nicht.de doesn't have a
> signed SOA.
It complains that the SOA of wars-nicht.de itself is not signed, or that
ns3.wars-nicht.de does not have a signed SOA for billigmail.org and
incertum.net?
> I already tried incr
Contact the adminstrator of the server and request that they stop
disabling dnssec. "dnssec-enable yes;" is the default for all
version except 9.3.x.
% grep dnssec-enable 9.?.x/bin/named/config.c
9.3.x/bin/named/config.c: dnssec-enable no; /* Make yes for 9.4. */ \n\
9.4.x/bin/named/config
* Mark Andrews :
> Contact the adminstrator of the server and request that they stop
> disabling dnssec. "dnssec-enable yes;" is the default for all
> version except 9.3.x.
Are you sure that 88.198.26.233 has DNSSEC disabled? The admin told me
he had added "dnssec-enable yes;" to the named.conf f
In message <20110630031511.gn14...@mail.incertum.net>, Stefan Foerster writes:
> * Mark Andrews :
> > Contact the adminstrator of the server and request that they stop
> > disabling dnssec. "dnssec-enable yes;" is the default for all
> > version except 9.3.x.
>
> Are you sure that 88.198.26.233
+ / let me guess / you use Smart Signing ?
Weird, this week, in my verification of DNSSEC'd domains by our registrars
I picked up exactly the same error :
no RRSIG on the SOA.
They filed a bug report to ISC about this.
Might be related to this Smart Signing thing -
can you confirm you are also us
36 matches
Mail list logo
