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
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:43:42AM -0500, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> I have seen some benchmarking stat's on Bind [1] and NSD that
> compare FreeBSD 6.1 to 4.11, and 4.11 kick 6.1's ass and then
> wipes up the floor with it.
>
> I'm going to be putting a DNS server in production soon and was
> plan
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
