FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7

Fri Feb 29 16:18:56 UTC 2008

Maybe the same hardware performes _sometimes_ better in Linux. It
differs from kernel release to kernel release and of course from distro
to distro. So 'better' is sometimes just _different_.

--Oliver

Chris <chrcoluk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/02/2008, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at toybox.placo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> > > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Sam Leffler
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:54 AM
> > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > Cc: freebsd-performance at freebsd.org; Kris Kennaway; Oliver Herold;
> > > freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
> > >
> > >
> > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> > > >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Kris Kennaway
> > > >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:18 PM
> > > >> To: Oliver Herold; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org;
> > > >> freebsd-performance at freebsd.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: FreeBSD bind performance in FreeBSD 7
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Oliver Herold wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I saw this bind benchmarks just some minutes ago,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://new.isc.org/proj/dnsperf/OStest.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> is this true for FreeBSD 7 (current state: RELENG_7/7.0R) too? Or is
> > > >>> this something verified only for the state of development
> > > back in August
> > > >>> 2007?
> > > >>>
> > > >> I have been trying to replicate this.  ISC have kindly given me access
> > > >> to their test data but I am seeing Linux performing much slower than
> > > >> FreeBSD with the same ISC workload.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Kris,
> > > >
> > > >   Every couple years we go through this with ISC.  They come out with
> > > > a new version of BIND then claim that nothing other than Linux can
> > > > run it well.  I've seen this nonsense before and it's tiresome.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, the query tool they used, queryperf, has been changed
> > > > to dnsperf.  Someone needs to look at that port -
> > > /usr/ports/dns/dnsperf -
> > > > as it has a build depend of bind9 - well bind 9.3.4 is part of
> > > 6.3-RELEASE
> > > > and I was rather irked when I ran the dnsperf port maker and the
> > > > maker stupidly began the process of downloading and building the
> > > > same version of BIND that I was already running on my server.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> * I am trying to understand what is different about the ISC
> > > >> configuration but have not yet found the cause.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > It's called "Anti-FreeBSD bias".  You won't find anything.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> e.g. NSD
> > > >> (ports/dns/nsd) is a much faster and more scalable DNS server than BIND
> > > >> (because it is better optimized for the smaller set of features it
> > > >> supports).
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > When you make remarks like that it's no wonder ISC is in the business
> > > > of slamming FreeBSD.  People used to make the same claims about djbdns
> > > > but I noticed over the last few years they don't seem to be doing
> > > > that anymore.
> > > >
> > > > If nsd is so much better than yank bind out of the base FreeBSD and
> > > > replace it with nsd.  Of course that will make more work for me
> > > > when I regen our nameservers here since nsd will be the first thing
> > > > on the "rm" list.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please save your rhetoric for some other forum.  The ISC folks have been
> > > working with us to understand what's going on.
> >
> > Did anyone try disabling the onboard NIC and put in an Intel
> > Pro/1000 in the PCI express slot in the server and retest with
> > both Linux and FreeBSD?  As I run Proliants for a living,
> > this stuck out to me like a sore thumb.  The onboard NIC
> > in the systems they used for the testbed is just shit.  Hell,
> > just about anything Broadcom makes is shit.  They even managed
> > to screw up the 3c905 ASIC when 3com switched to using them
> > as the supplier (from Lucent)( - I've watched those card versions
> > panic Linux systems and drop massive packets in FreeBSD,
> > when the Lucent-made chipped cards worked fine.
> >
> > > I'm not aware of any
> > > anit-FreeBSD slams going on; mostly uninformed comments.
> > >
> >
> > It's customary in the industry before publishing rather unflattering
> > results to call in the team in charge of the unflattering
> > product and give them a chance to verify that the tester
> > really knew what they were doing.
> >
> > FreeBSD has got slammed a number of times in the past by
> > testers who didn't do this.  In fact as I recall the impetus
> > for fixing the
> > extended greater than 16MB memory test was due to a
> > slam in a trade rag from a tester who didn't bother
> > recompiling the FreeBSD kernel to recognize the complete
> > amount of ram in the server, and running it up against Linux.
> >
> > Maybe I am wrong and the ISC team did in fact call you guys
> > in before publishing the results - but the wording of
> > the entire site (not just the test results) indicated
> > they did their testing and informed FreeBSD after the fact.
> > after publishing.  Not nice.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> 
> A weakness of freebsd is its fussyness over hardware in particular
> network cards, time and time again I see posts here telling people to
> go out buying expensive intel pro 1000 cards just so they can use the
> operating system properly when I think its reasonable to expect
> mainstream hardware to work, eg. realtek is mainstream and common as a
> onboard nic but the support in freebsd is poor and only serving
> datacentres to shy away from freebsd.  If the same hardware performs
> better in linux then the hardware isnt to blame for worser performance
> in fbsd.
> 
> Chris

-- 
	A musical reviewer admitted he always praised the first show of a
new theatrical season.  "Who am I to stone the first cast?"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20080229/db8724cc/attachment.pgp