[Pdns-users] Re: PowerDNS performance compared to othernameservers

[Geier, Michael D]

Thanks for the reply.

Currently thinking of:
	HP/Compaq DL360 servers x 2 ( 3.06 Xeon Procs, 2Gb RAM )
	Oracle running on in-house, remote server ( I wish I could use
MySQL; territorial issues )
	Dynamic Updates would almost exclusively come from Windows DHCP
server/Windows Clients ( 2000,XP,2003 )

This is really starting to sound like the 'killer app' for us here.  I
haven't been able to find any other product that handles both the SQL
backend (pretty much a requirement for our configuration here) and DDNS.

Thanks.

Michael Geier
Enterprise RAC, Network Operations, DNS Administrator
          email: Michael.D.Geier at erac.com
          phone: 314.512.4452



> -----Original Message-----
> From: bert hubert [mailto:ahu at ds9a.nl] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: Geier, Michael D
> Cc: pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
> Subject: Re: [Pdns-users] Re: PowerDNS performance compared 
> to othernameservers
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:02:03AM -0600, Geier, Michael D wrote:
> 
> > Requirements:
> > 	Dynamic DNS ala DHCP
> > 	SQL Backend (preferably Oracle)
> > 	Speed would be nice
> > 
> > I just found PDNS today.  If anyone would like to comment on the 
> > above,
> > possibly pointing to optimal configuration/setup for Linux (RHEL), I
> > would appreciate it.	
> 
> PowerDNS loves memory. Secondly, 
> http://doc.powerdns.com/performance.html
> can be very 
> instructive. If you need the utmost of performance, you may 
> want to consider to run in 'all-cached' mode and invalidate 
> parts of the cache when you make changes, as described in the 
> URL above.
> 
> If there is one major thing to remember, which I think 
> Stephane may have forgotten, it is to turn off most logging. 
> log-dns-details=off. Logging is very expensive, far more so 
> than doing DNS in the first place!
> 
> RHEL has a lot of threading work incorporated which means 
> that it should benefit from multiple processors. Stock Debian 
> will probably be hurt by multiple processors!
> 
> We've done Oracle testing with a very large registry a long 
> time ago and back then we found that there were large 
> performance gains to be had by giving Oracle its own server, 
> but we never figured out why.
> 
> So far MySQL is stil the king of speed.
> 
> Wrt 'Dynamic DNS', the whole issue revolves around 
> authentication. Regular DNS Update messages are not signed in 
> any way and can be spoofed. Generally, dynamic update 
> providers use a protocol to convey updates to the database. 
> You'd need to be somewhat more specific.
> 
> 
> > > Is this tuned configuration available somewhere? :-)
> > > More details on backend (and maybe details about RDBMS), linux
> > > distribution, hardware would be great :-)
> 
> The test ran on a dual Athlon with 3.5G of memory and the 
> highly undocumented 'xdb' backend, which is included in 
> powerdns but very hard to use currently.
> 
> Thanks for your interest!
> 
> Bert.
> 
> -- 
> http://www.PowerDNS.com      Open source, database driven DNS 
> Software 
> http://lartc.org           Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic 
> Control HOWTO
>