Maintained by: NLnet Labs

[Unbound-users] Performance of Caching Name Servers

Wouter Wijngaards
Fri Jun 13 09:10:24 CEST 2008


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

Hi,

Is the machine a multi cpu, multi-core machine? You can increase
num-threads in the config file.

Are you sure that both bind and unbound are treated the same by resperf?
What does resperf measure (what queries does it send?)

What is the bind configuration that you use and what is the unbound
configuration that you use? Are they acting as full resolvers, or do
they forward to another host?

Best regards,
~   Wouter


蔡述宪 wrote:
| Hi everyone!
|
|     I have configured a machine in my LAN as a Caching Name Servers
| using Unbound. Then I test the performance of this CNS from another host
| in the same LAN with the tool resperf come with dnsperf. And the
| throughput of this CNS I got is about 5376qps. After that I reconfigured
| this CNS using BIND9 instead of Unbound and got about 24582qps
| throughput. I have tried to change the config file for Unbound(increase
| those cache size/slabs/numbers) but that doesn't do any good to the
| performance of Unbound. Can anyone give me some suggestions on this?
| Where can I change in the config file to get the most out of Unbound as
| a CNS?  Thanks a lot!
|
|     BTW, all my test machines are running Solaris10.
|
| Best Regards
| Shuxian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhSHWAACgkQkDLqNwOhpPifIQCfSvspc4vg6f5c8kQ0ovEb7K11
UIMAoLANFjmt1wmYRyn/O3tl5SfPVjVM
=kUoL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----