[nsd-users] NSD test

[yzw_iplab]

Dear Wouter,
Thank you very much for your answer.
I set the TTL to 0 in order to test the processing ability of DNS softwares.
In this way, all the queries should do : root query---TLD query---SLD query. No cache for all queries and in all cases.
 
When the TLD server uses NSD, the performance is promoted than the all-BIND case. That means the NSD can improve the DNS processing efficiency. However, because the SLD uses BIND, the bottleneck still exists. So, when all the authority servers (both TLD and SLD) use NSD. The performance is promoted significantly.
 
However, when the SLD server uses NSD, the performance is not promoted than the all-BIND case. So the results are different for the following two cases and that is just my confusion.
 
Case2: Recursive (bind) ---Root (bind) ---TA (bind) ---SA (nsd)
173.912569 qps
Case3: Recursive (bind) --- Root (bind) ---TA (nsd) ---SA (bind)
1857.768915 qps
 
You said: “The recursor must ask the TLD server to fetch the NS records again. This is why performance depends on the TLD server.” 
Yes, but the recursor also must ask the SLD server to fetch the answer. So why NSD cannot improve the performance of SLD server?
 
BR,
Zhiwei 

2011-09-16 



yzw_iplab 



发件人： W.C.A. Wijngaards 
发送时间： 2011-09-16  16:27:29 
收件人： nsd-users 
抄送： 
主题： Re: [nsd-users] NSD test 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Zhiwei Yan,
I do not fully understand your test.  But I think that the 0 TTL affects
the NS records for my.test. and thus the recursor is not allowed to
cache the NS records.  The recursor must ask the TLD server to fetch the
NS records again.  This is why performance depends on the TLD server.
Best regards,
   Wouter
On 09/16/2011 10:07 AM, yzw_iplab wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> Recently, I tested the performance of BIND,NSD and UNBOUND. However, I
> am confused with the testing results. I list them here for your help.
> 
>  
> 
> I fake the root, ‘test’ top level domain and ‘my.test’ second level domain.
> 
> I use the ‘queryperf’ in the client and the number of queries is 50000,
> all of them belong to ‘my.test’ domain and have positive responses. In
> the zone file of ‘test’ and ‘my.test’, TTL is set to 0, and then every
> query should be performed from root to the ‘my.test’ server without the
> assistance of cache.
> 
>  
> 
>  Client executes the DNS query using ‘queryperf’ under the following
> four scenarios (where SA and TA denote the Second level Authority server
> and Top level Authority server respectively), their QPS results are：
> 
> Case1: Recursive (bind)---Root(bind)---TA*(bind)*---*SA(bind)*
> 
> 153.521955 qps
> 
> Case2: Recursive(bind)---Root (bind)---TA*(bind)*---*SA (nsd)*
> 
> 173.912569 qps
> 
> Case3: Recursive(bind)---Root (bind)---TA*(nsd)*---*SA (bind)*
> 
> 1857.768915 qps
> 
> Case4: Recursive(bind)---Root (bind)---A*(nsd)*---*SA (nsd)*
> 
> 1923.845425 qps
> 
> As you find, only when the NSD is deployed on the TA, the performance
> (e.g., QPS) can be promoted significantly. In other words, even when the
> SA uses the NSD, the QPS is just similar with the case when all the
> servers use BIND. This confused me, so why the results are totally
> different when TA uses NSD and SA uses NSD.
> 
> In my mind, the results should be similar in these two cases.
> 
>  
> 
> This same results appear when the recursive server uses UNBOUND. And the
> corresponding results is listed as following:
> 
> Case1: Recursive(unbound)---Root (bind)---TA*(bind)*---*SA (bind)*
> 
> 254.047935 qps
> 
> Case2: Recursive(unbound)---Root (bind)---TA*(bind)*---*SA (nsd)*
> 
> 293.855172 qps
> 
> Case3: Recursive(unbound)---Root (bind)---TA*(nsd)*---*SA (bind)*
> 
> 14968.491326 qps
> 
> Case4: Recursive(unbound)---Root (bind)---TA*(nsd)*---*SA (nsd)*
> 
> 15071.630940 qps
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you very much for your attention!
> 
> Zhiwei Yan
> 
> 2011-09-16
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> yzw_iplab
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsd-users mailing list
> nsd-users at NLnetLabs.nl
> http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/nsd-users
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=/seK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
nsd-users mailing list
nsd-users at NLnetLabs.nl
http://open.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/nsd-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/pipermail/nsd-users/attachments/20110916/4159531e/attachment.htm>