From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 25 20:17:58 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764C116A420; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:17:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C94813C4F2; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:17:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <47C32274.2060706@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:17:56 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Herold , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" References: <20080225133347.GA2446@asgard.home> In-Reply-To: <20080225133347.GA2446@asgard.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:17:58 -0000 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 access to their test data but I am seeing Linux performing much slower than FreeBSD with the same ISC workload. http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/bind-pt.png Summary: * FreeBSD 7.0-R with 4BSD scheduler has close to ideal scaling on this test. * The drop above 6 threads is due to limitations within BIND. * Linux 2.6.24 has about 35% lower performance than FreeBSD, which is significantly at variance with the ISC results. It also doesn't scale above 3 CPUs. * I am trying to understand what is different about the ISC configuration but have not yet found the cause. They were testing 2.6.20.7 so it is possible that there was a major regression before the 2.6.22 and .24 kernels I tested. Or maybe something is broken with the Intel gige driver in Linux (they were using broadcom hardware). The graph is showing performance over 10ge, but I get the same peak performance over gige when I query from 2 clients (the client benchmark is very sensitive to network latency so a single client is not enough to saturate BIND over gige). * 7.0 with ULE has a bug on this workload (actually to do with workloads involving high interrupt rates). It is fixed in 8.0. * Changes we have in progress to improve UDP performance do not help much with this particular workload (only about 5%), but with more scalable applications we see 30-40% improvement. 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). Kris