Claudio Jeker writes:
> Don't forget to increase the UDP recvbuffer space. The default is somewhat
> small and will result in drops. At least you should invest some time to
> play with that value and see if it helps.
I played with the net.inet.udp.recvspace sysctl option today. The
maximum allow
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:50:52PM +0300, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
> Stuart Henderson writes:
>
> > On 2013-04-19, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
> >> root@dmeg-dns1 ~ # /usr/local/sbin/named -V BIND 9.9.2-P2 built with
> >> --enable-shared' '--enable-threads'
> >
> > You could try rebuilding the port
Stuart Henderson writes:
> On 2013-04-19, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
>> root@dmeg-dns1 ~ # /usr/local/sbin/named -V BIND 9.9.2-P2 built with
>> --enable-shared' '--enable-threads'
>
> You could try rebuilding the port without --enable-threads and see if it's
> any different.
>
I rebuilt the port
I've never used BIND in this sort of instance, so I can't speak to that. I
can say, however, I've run reasonably "large" authoritative anycast DNS
setups with NSD and OpenBSD. two north american sites, 10Kqps average, with
one notable 80K spike.
the whole system ran practically untouched (minor BG
On 2013-04-19, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
> root@dmeg-dns1 ~ # /usr/local/sbin/named -V
> BIND 9.9.2-P2 built with
> '--enable-shared' '--enable-threads'
You could try rebuilding the port without --enable-threads and see if i
Well,
I actually told you to "Give up" in my first mail :)
So do it.
In your env. in is(probably) better to run Linux. Do it.
I just tell you MINE point of view. If your don't want to hear it - I'll shut
up.
P.S.
std. answer to ANY on this list - You ever contribute with code or you wait for
y
mxb writes:
> From mine point of view, OpenBSD is a stable OS (even some aged snapshots).
> I don't put any "performance pressure" on it. I just want services to
> be STABLE.
I really can't speak for the developers, but achieving less that 1/4 of
the performance of Linux for DNS and mainly, ach
>From mine point of view, OpenBSD is a stable OS (even some aged snapshots).
I don't put any "performance pressure" on it. I just want services to be STABLE.
If I want STABLE, I replace Linux or any other with OpenBSD.
//mxb
On 19 apr 2013, at 20:22, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
> mxb writes:
>
>
mxb writes:
> Give up.
>
> For the record.
> I had BIND on Ubuntu 12.04 on Dell R610. It constantly segfaulted for yet
> unknown reason (lazy to debug).
> This machine was overloaded with resources.
>
> However, not much of load as yours, but I'v tired of this and put all zones
> to R620 with O
Kostas Zorbadelos writes:
Here is the missing dmesg:
OpenBSD 5.3-current (GENERIC.MP) #40: Tue Mar 26 10:25:59 MDT 2013
dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
real mem = 17082220544 (16290MB)
avail mem = 16619790336 (15849MB)
mainbus0 at root
bios0 at mainbus0:
Give up.
For the record.
I had BIND on Ubuntu 12.04 on Dell R610. It constantly segfaulted for yet
unknown reason (lazy to debug).
This machine was overloaded with resources.
However, not much of load as yours, but I'v tired of this and put all zones to
R620 with OpenBSD 5.3.
So far not a soun
Hello all,
quite a few months ago I had evaluated OpenBSD for a large scale anycast
DNS resolving setup:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=133828399728289&w=2
The findings at the time (using VMs in a lab environment) was that
OpenBSD failed to meet my performance requirements and the main
suspi
I can't reach that value with a Dell OptiPlex GX280 w/ onboard bge(4)
MP kernel, net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen=250, 4.0 or -current, doesn't matter.
Collision count increases monotonically. Stops forwarding packets, etc.
Switching to em(4) carries limit to ~25k to ~30k.
consider trying to increase ifq.
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
In any case, it's obvious DNS performance is not something I need
to worry about.
I think you are correct. You can also add more DNS servers at any point.
Simplistic (but sufficient) load balancing and redundancy are
trivially easy with DNS.
--
Darrin Chandler
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 11:00:17PM +0200, Berk D. Demir wrote:
> Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
>
> > And when does performance really start to matter for a DNS
> > server?
>
> 15.000 queries/sec seems a bit unrealistic to me. I bet even
> with 15.000 packets/sec your ethernet cards will create an
>
Henning Brauer wrote:
err... 15k pps is easily reachable
well, not on a soekris perhaps
I can't reach that value with a Dell OptiPlex GX280 w/ onboard bge(4)
MP kernel, net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen=250, 4.0 or -current, doesn't matter.
Collision count increases monotonically. Stops forwarding packets
* Berk D. Demir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-22 22:04]:
> Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
>
> >And when does performance really start to matter for a DNS
> >server? Say I host 500 web sites and 500 email domains with
> >"average" traffic, for some value of average. Is a limit of
> >15,000 DNS queries/se
Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
And when does performance really start to matter for a DNS
server? Say I host 500 web sites and 500 email domains with
"average" traffic, for some value of average. Is a limit of
15,000 DNS queries/second ever going to be a problem? If not,
when could it become a probl
ver in production soon and was
> planning to use FreeBSD, but now I'm wondering if OpenBSD would
> be a better choice from purely a performance perspective.
>
> I understand performance is secondary to security for this
> project, but I am curious what the numbers are in this sp
On 2006/11/22 18:01, fRANz wrote:
> On 11/22/06, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I understand performance is secondary to security for this
> >project, but I am curious what the numbers are in this specific
> >case.
>
> For performance and security too, I suggest you to try djbdn
I've had very good results with MaraDNS, been using it for at least two
years now with no problems.
Some highlights:
Memory based, so
it loads all the configuration settings on startup and then jails itself so
it cannot write to the FS
Small, and FAST - It's been benchmarked as faster than Bind (
On 11/22/06, Mark Bucciarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I understand performance is secondary to security for this
project, but I am curious what the numbers are in this specific
case.
For performance and security too, I suggest you to try djbdns instead bind:
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html
Reg
SD would
be a better choice from purely a performance perspective.
I understand performance is secondary to security for this
project, but I am curious what the numbers are in this specific
case.
Does anyone have stats on Bind performance on OpenBSD? (I saw
the fefe page--looks old.)
And when doe
23 matches
Mail list logo
