[Pdns-users] TinyDNS Backend questions

Fri Aug 31 11:44:45 UTC 2012

Francois,

I ran it on a VM with 512Megs ram. serving about 200q/s public without
any problem concerning performance.

The file we produced (the .cdb) was about 70Mb, containing ~60.000
records with a avarage of 10 records / zone.

We also saw a performance increase by using powerdns+tinydns backend. I
guess this is due to the caching mechanism and proper program
development of powerdns.

Regards,
Henry Paulissen

On 08/31/2012 01:30 PM, xbgmsharp wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> I use PowerDNS's SVN version as TinyDNS backend is not ship by default
> in the package.
> So I believe, I have this patch apply,
> http://wiki.powerdns.com/trac/changeset/2622
> I will apply the patch from github.
> 
> According to my first test using dnsperf, PowerDNS with TinyDNS backend
> seen faster than TinyDNS himself.
> The biggest concern is stability to avoid PowerDNS to crash due to weird
> data or too many data.
> The file contains 26643 entries and errors.
> It use the default configuration from PowerDNS, I am sure it could be
> improve by tunning PowerDNS.
> The system is Ubuntu 12.04 compile with gcc 4.6.3 on x86_64.
> The hardware is a one Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @2.66GHz with 4 Cores
> and 4096M System RAM.
> It is not the production system but should give us a nice idea.
> I need to go deeper in the testing, but so far so good.
> 
> PowerdNS with tinyDNS backend.
> Statistics:
> 
>   Queries sent:         26608
>   Queries completed:    15416 (57.94%)
>   Queries lost:         11192 (42.06%)
> 
>   Response codes:       NOERROR 15415 (99.99%), NXDOMAIN 1 (0.01%)
>   Average packet size:  request 45, response 61
>   Run time (s):         565.866733
>   Queries per second:   27.243164
> 
>   Average Latency (s):  0.035546 (min 0.033069, max 0.056192)
>   Latency StdDev (s):   0.001457
> 
> TinyDNS
> Statistics:
> 
>   Queries sent:         26608
>   Queries completed:    11835 (44.48%)
>   Queries lost:         14773 (55.52%)
> 
>   Response codes:       NOERROR 11834 (99.99%), NXDOMAIN 1 (0.01%)
>   Average packet size:  request 45, response 129
>   Run time (s):         745.820314
>   Queries per second:   15.868433
> 
>   Average Latency (s):  0.049470 (min 0.041367, max 0.078622)
>   Latency StdDev (s):   0.004388
> 
> Regards,
> Francois
> 
> On 2012-08-31 10:18, Ruben d'Arco wrote:
>> Hi Francois,
>>
>> The tinydnsbackend is marked experimental because 3.1 is the first
>> release that has the backend.
>> PowerDNS needs some 'out in the field' validation that the backend is
>> working correctly.
>> Please provide feedback, as we could then remove the experimental flag!
>>
>> We know one user who uses it with a data.cdb file > 70M. That user
>> also has identified some issues, one
>> important issue is fixed in http://wiki.powerdns.com/trac/changeset/2622
>> You can either apply the patch yourself, or take PowerDNS's SVN
>> version to have this resolved.
>> This patch is strongly recommended!
>>
>> The user also reported that PowerDNS handles errors in the data.cdb
>> file different from tinydns.
>> I've added an configuration option to allow the behaviour to be
>> configurable, the patch for that can be found here:
>>
>> https://github.com/cyclops1982/powerdns/compare/master...tinydns2.diff
>> This patch is only useful if your data.cdb file is not a 100%
>> correct. Something that can be resolved by
>> making sure your data file is correct before running tinydns-data.
>>
>> The scenario you're planning (move from dbjdns to powerdns and then
>> change backend) is a scenario we've heard before
>> and partially why the backend was created - the master mode that the
>> backend provides should help you with this.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>         Ruben d'Arco
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 09:53:58AM +0200, xbgmsharp wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> According to the documentation
>>> (http://doc.powerdns.com/tinydnsbackend.html), the TinyDNS backend
>>> is marked as experimental!
>>> It this statement still true?
>>>
>>> We are currently using tinydns and djbdns in all our infrastructure.
>>> We are thinking in moving to Powerdns to support new feature.
>>> However before doing a big move, we would rater make the move in
>>> multiple step.
>>> The first step would be to use Powerdns with TinyDNS backend.
>>> The second step would be to move from TinyDNS backend to a database
>>> backend.
>>> This second step require a rewrite of our DNS tools and it will take
>>> longer.
>>>
>>> Our data.cdb is file is around 18M.
>>>
>>> Do you think it is safe to use Powerdns with TinyDNS backend in
>>> production?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Francois
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pdns-users mailing list
>>> Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
>>> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pdns-users mailing list
>> Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
>> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pdns-users mailing list
> Pdns-users at mailman.powerdns.com
> http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.powerdns.com/pipermail/pdns-users/attachments/20120831/84b9a61c/attachment-0001.sig>