Maintained by: NLnet Labs

[Unbound-users] some performance tests

W.C.A. Wijngaards
Wed Jun 4 09:13:01 CEST 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Mauro,

These numbers are very low, both unbound and bind. I often see more than
1000 qps on very low hardware. With 1000 queries in total maybe you are
testing something else, maybe the speed of the ISP in italy?

unbound comes with a 'perf' tool (make perf), it cannot limit itself to
1000 queries, but to a number of seconds. You would be considered a
flooding maniac during those seconds. It has very few options.

I think the 1000 queries limit is somehow changing the result. With you
sending 1000 queries fairly quickly, then getting a large roundtrip time
or something, and the result dominated by that roundtrip time?

On the other hand, maybe the ISP DNS server really is that slow, and
these rates are 'normal' for your setup.  In that case I would suggest
to make it more realistic, so that the numbers are more like reality.

You could run your own bind/unbound/... server as forward server, so you
can send as many queries to it as you like.  An not bother the italian ISP.

Best regards,
~   Wouter

Mauro Rappa wrote:
| Hi all,
| i like to make test to try new product, so i did some tests WITHOUT
any goal to demonstate which software is better.
| i want compare Bind9 vs Unbound in cache-only deploy (i use it for
speedup antispam server).
| My server is:
|
| quad core Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.40GHz
| 4Gb Ram
| LSI Logic 1020/1030 Ultra320 SCSI Adapter
| Debian Etch
| 30Mb full internet access (!)
|
|
| i setup only one forwarder (dns of biggest ISP in italy) and i used
dnsperf (the same used by ISC),
| i tried only 1000 queries to avoid to be considered an attacker.
|
| These are results of three tests (mean):
|
| unbound
|   Queries per second:   215.951160 qps
|
| bind
|   Queries per second:   181.861585 qps
|
| in this case unbound is 20% faster.
|
| Now, i want to make a different tests with more 'sense',
| Can we discuss a battery of test and a 'modus operandi' ?
| in particoular which dns server must be used to obtain 'good' results
(to avoid to be a bottleneck)?
|
| Thanks,
| Mauro Rappa
| _______________________________________________
| Unbound-users mailing list
| Unbound-users at unbound.net
| http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhGQH0ACgkQkDLqNwOhpPgUawCgib7tcndrZC70fjWnW5svANfk
z10AnROMxHvhT/Z9mKqzv3kenjNFGCHT
=7vDA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----