[Unbound-users] Performance of Caching Name Servers
caishuxian at gmail.com
Fri Jun 13 09:06:49 UTC 2008
Thanks a lot for your suggestion!
The machine is an Intel dual-core CPU. I'll try to increase num-threads
and see if it works.
About the queries I send. Yes, I use the same datafile and send the same
queries in both Unbound and Bind cases. But actually I don't know what kind
of queries list is the best and how to generate a good one. So I just use a
long list of website names. :(
And I configured the machine to forward all queries to the up level DNS
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Wouter Wijngaards <wouter at nlnetlabs.nl>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 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)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unbound-users