[Pdns-users] TinyDNS Backend questions

[xbgmsharp]

Hi Henry,

Nice information
Our NS authoritative are currently doing around 1.2Kq/s for ns1 and 
2.5Kq/s for ns0.
Obviously going down during the night to 0.5Kq/s each.

Regards,
Francois

On 2012-08-31 13:44, Henry Paulissen wrote:
> 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