Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:18:35 +0100 From: Oliver Herold <oliver@akephalos.de> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 Message-ID: <20080229161835.GA1709@asgard.home> In-Reply-To: <3aaaa3a0802290744x25a81d68vf0ff101f6b7a819e@mail.gmail.com> References: <47C59591.6040600@errno.com> <BMEDLGAENEKCJFGODFOCOEHACFAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <3aaaa3a0802290744x25a81d68vf0ff101f6b7a819e@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Maybe the same hardware performes _sometimes_ better in Linux. It differs from kernel release to kernel release and of course from distro to distro. So 'better' is sometimes just _different_. --Oliver Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/02/2008, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Sam Leffler > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:54 AM > > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > > > Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway; Oliver Herold; > > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 > > > > > > > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > > >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Kris Kenn= away > > > >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:18 PM > > > >> To: Oliver Herold; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; > > > >> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org > > > >> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Oliver Herold wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> I saw this bind benchmarks just some minutes ago, > > > >>> > > > >>> http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html > > > >>> > > > >>> is this true for FreeBSD 7 (current state: RELENG_7/7.0R) too? Or= is > > > >>> this something verified only for the state of development > > > back in August > > > >>> 2007? > > > >>> > > > >> I have been trying to replicate this. ISC have kindly given me ac= cess > > > >> to their test data but I am seeing Linux performing much slower th= an > > > >> FreeBSD with the same ISC workload. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Kris, > > > > > > > > Every couple years we go through this with ISC. They come out wi= th > > > > a new version of BIND then claim that nothing other than Linux can > > > > run it well. I've seen this nonsense before and it's tiresome. > > > > > > > > Incidentally, the query tool they used, queryperf, has been changed > > > > to dnsperf. Someone needs to look at that port - > > > /usr/ports/dns/dnsperf - > > > > as it has a build depend of bind9 - well bind 9.3.4 is part of > > > 6.3-RELEASE > > > > and I was rather irked when I ran the dnsperf port maker and the > > > > maker stupidly began the process of downloading and building the > > > > same version of BIND that I was already running on my server. > > > > > > > > > > > >> * I am trying to understand what is different about the ISC > > > >> configuration but have not yet found the cause. > > > >> > > > > > > > > It's called "Anti-FreeBSD bias". You won't find anything. > > > > > > > > > > > >> e.g. NSD > > > >> (ports/dns/nsd) is a much faster and more scalable DNS server than= BIND > > > >> (because it is better optimized for the smaller set of features it > > > >> supports). > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > When you make remarks like that it's no wonder ISC is in the busine= ss > > > > of slamming FreeBSD. People used to make the same claims about djb= dns > > > > but I noticed over the last few years they don't seem to be doing > > > > that anymore. > > > > > > > > If nsd is so much better than yank bind out of the base FreeBSD and > > > > replace it with nsd. Of course that will make more work for me > > > > when I regen our nameservers here since nsd will be the first thing > > > > on the "rm" list. > > > > > > > > > > Please save your rhetoric for some other forum. The ISC folks have b= een > > > working with us to understand what's going on. > > > > Did anyone try disabling the onboard NIC and put in an Intel > > Pro/1000 in the PCI express slot in the server and retest with > > both Linux and FreeBSD? As I run Proliants for a living, > > this stuck out to me like a sore thumb. The onboard NIC > > in the systems they used for the testbed is just shit. Hell, > > just about anything Broadcom makes is shit. They even managed > > to screw up the 3c905 ASIC when 3com switched to using them > > as the supplier (from Lucent)( - I've watched those card versions > > panic Linux systems and drop massive packets in FreeBSD, > > when the Lucent-made chipped cards worked fine. > > > > > I'm not aware of any > > > anit-FreeBSD slams going on; mostly uninformed comments. > > > > > > > It's customary in the industry before publishing rather unflattering > > results to call in the team in charge of the unflattering > > product and give them a chance to verify that the tester > > really knew what they were doing. > > > > FreeBSD has got slammed a number of times in the past by > > testers who didn't do this. In fact as I recall the impetus > > for fixing the > > extended greater than 16MB memory test was due to a > > slam in a trade rag from a tester who didn't bother > > recompiling the FreeBSD kernel to recognize the complete > > amount of ram in the server, and running it up against Linux. > > > > Maybe I am wrong and the ISC team did in fact call you guys > > in before publishing the results - but the wording of > > the entire site (not just the test results) indicated > > they did their testing and informed FreeBSD after the fact. > > after publishing. Not nice. > > > > Ted > > >=20 > A weakness of freebsd is its fussyness over hardware in particular > network cards, time and time again I see posts here telling people to > go out buying expensive intel pro 1000 cards just so they can use the > operating system properly when I think its reasonable to expect > mainstream hardware to work, eg. realtek is mainstream and common as a > onboard nic but the support in freebsd is poor and only serving > datacentres to shy away from freebsd. If the same hardware performs > better in linux then the hardware isnt to blame for worser performance > in fbsd. >=20 > Chris --=20 A musical reviewer admitted he always praised the first show of a new theatrical season. "Who am I to stone the first cast?" --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkfIMFsACgkQbZFSiGSuUEjb7wCeKiq7lxkhNZlHkaz43R/VYyQf +jwAnjWj9YoN8553H164+3+OYke83ds5 =YLe7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080229161835.GA1709>