[dnsdist] dnsdist performance
Gentian Bajraktari
voipstar at gmail.com
Mon Aug 12 08:20:07 UTC 2019
Just did, its showing on metronome: Gentian-DNSDIST-TEST
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 10:16, Remi Gacogne <remi.gacogne at powerdns.com>
wrote:
> Hi Gentian,
>
> On 8/12/19 10:12 AM, Gentian Bajraktari wrote:
> > I have attached results from resperf ( latest compiled, 2.3.1) and the
> > configuration file (dnsdist.conf)
>
> Would you consider sending metrics to our public metronome server [1]
> so we understand what's the limiting factor during your tests? You only
> need to add a line like this one to your dnsdist configuration:
>
> carbonServer("37.252.122.50:2003",
> "put-the-name-you-want-to-display-here", 5)
>
> This will only send some metrics without any private information and is
> very useful to understand where the bottleneck may be.
>
> [1]: https://metronome1.powerdns.com/
>
> Best regards,
>
> Remi
>
> > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 22:30, Klaus Darilion
> > <klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at <mailto:klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Am 08.08.2019 um 10:20 schrieb Gentian Bajraktari:
> > > Dear Dnsdist community,
> > >
> > > we are trying to setup dnsdist as a loadbalancer for 2 bind
> recursive
> > > cache only servers,
> > >
> > > we have done a very simple setup:
> > > addLocal("DNSDIST_IP")
> > > newServer({address="BIND_IP1"})
> > > newServer({address=" BIND_IP2"})
> > > setServerPolicy(roundrobin)
> > >
> > > but when we test with resperf (from dnsperf tool), the results are
> > very
> > > bad for DNSDIST, around 5-15K QPS , while when we test directly to
> > one
> > > of BIND ip addresses the QPS goes up to 50-60Qps.
> > >
> > > we have tried both rpm install of dnsdist, compiling from source
> and
> > > even comiling the concur version but all with similar results, ie
> > when
> > > resperf tests go through dnsdist the results are much lower in
> > terms of qps.
> > >
> > > OS is Centos7 in all servers, tweaked all settings for file
> > limits, udp
> > > connections etc.
> > >
> > > any thoughts on what we can do? maybe resperf is not the tool to
> test
> > > this? do you have some suggetions on how we can test and make sure
> we
> > > are doing the right thing?
> >
> > I had similar results. Starting 4 listening threads and 4 receivers
> > threads (by adding the same backend 4 times) boosted my performance -
> > almost linear.
> >
> > If it still does not work your should post your config (and first
> test
> > without any rules to avoid performance issues because of rules)
> >
> > regards
> > Klaus
> > _______________________________________________
> > dnsdist mailing list
> > dnsdist at mailman.powerdns.com <mailto:dnsdist at mailman.powerdns.com>
> > https://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/dnsdist
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dnsdist mailing list
> > dnsdist at mailman.powerdns.com
> > https://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/dnsdist
> >
>
>
> --
> Remi Gacogne
> PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsdist mailing list
> dnsdist at mailman.powerdns.com
> https://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/dnsdist
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/dnsdist/attachments/20190812/7712f844/attachment.html>
More information about the dnsdist
mailing list