Maintained by: NLnet Labs

[Unbound-users] some performance tests

Ondřej Surý
Wed Jun 4 22:03:30 CEST 2008


Mauro,

we are also missing patterns you are testing. Do you test entirely random
domain name every time or you are repeating same queries (real question is
whether resolver cache is used or not). Also what is your upstream link
connectivity? Your bandwith may also affect results.

Ondrej.

2008/6/3 Mauro Rappa <Mauro.Rappa at infoklix.it>:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/unbound-users/attachments/20080604/597f1653/attachment.htm>