[Pdns-users] authoritative performance?

bert hubert bert.hubert at powerdns.com
Thu May 5 08:54:53 UTC 2016

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:35:15PM -0400, Bud Asterisk wrote:
> I realize this is like asking how cold is it outsideā€¦..but what type of
> performance could be obtained for various  server core/memory/A record
> count sizes? I have seen many tables/claims of 10,000 QPS on a moderate
> box, but what is realistic to go up to? Memory is cheap and can be added to
> ensure once it is cached in memory and not pulled from POSTGRES things
> would go quicker but I have no idea if 20,000 QPS is reasonable 50,000 etc!
> Any wisdom from the smarter folks appreciated.

It is indeed a bit like asking how cold it is outside. But we do have some
help. For example, pdnssec or "pdnsutil bench-db file" will help you stress out
your backend, uncached, with queries you put in file.

This delivers how many milliseconds or microseconds each backend query
takes. You can also run several copies of bench-db in parallel to figure out
how your backend reacts to parallelism.

You should then ask yourself what your cache miss rate is going to be, and
calculate what the effective cached performance would be.

Actual backend performance is impacted heavily by hardware, virtualization,
virtualization type etc, so you should really run the numbers yourself.

Could you let us know your results?


More information about the Pdns-users mailing list