Testing DNS Performance limits the Final Chapter

Similar documents
SIDN Server Measurements

Self-Adapting Load Balancing for DNS

ENUM in everyday practice is it a dream or an opportunity?

Table of Contents. Server Virtualization Peer Review cameron : modified, cameron

Copyright by Parallels Holdings, Ltd. All rights reserved.

HP ProLiant Gen8 vs Gen9 Server Blades on Data Warehouse Workloads

Comparing Free Virtualization Products

Performance Analysis and Comparison of Different DNS64 Implementations for Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD

Performance Evaluation of VMXNET3 Virtual Network Device VMware vsphere 4 build

Cloud Computing through Virtualization and HPC technologies

CentOS Linux 5.2 and Apache 2.2 vs. Microsoft Windows Web Server 2008 and IIS 7.0 when Serving Static and PHP Content

Virtualization Technologies and Blackboard: The Future of Blackboard Software on Multi-Core Technologies

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Linux Competitive File Server Performance Comparison

Informatica Data Director Performance

Hardware and Software Requirements for Installing California.pro

Dualog Connection Suite Hardware and Software Requirements

Software and Hardware Requirements

AlphaTrust PRONTO - Hardware Requirements

A Comparison of VMware and {Virtual Server}

Analysis of VDI Storage Performance During Bootstorm

Quantifying the Performance Degradation of IPv6 for TCP in Windows and Linux Networking

Study and installation of a VOIP service on ipaq in Linux environment

Virtualization. Michael Tsai 2015/06/08

Using VMware VMotion with Oracle Database and EMC CLARiiON Storage Systems

Virtualised MikroTik

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 with Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0 vs. Linux Competitive Web Server Performance Comparison

System Requirements G E N E R A L S Y S T E M R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Avid ISIS v4.7.7 Performance and Redistribution Guide

Main Memory Data Warehouses

Streaming and Virtual Hosted Desktop Study

Muse Server Sizing. 18 June Document Version Muse

Balancing CPU, Storage

Deploying IP Anycast. Core DNS Services for University of Minnesota Introduction and General discussion

MDSplus Automated Build and Distribution System

Capacity Planning for Microsoft SharePoint Technologies

An Oracle Benchmarking Study February Oracle Insurance Insbridge Enterprise Rating: Performance Assessment

The operating system requirements listed in this document include the most current patches and service packs.

Performance measurements of syslog-ng Premium Edition 4 F1

Virtuoso and Database Scalability

Several tips on how to choose a suitable computer

Mark Bennett. Search and the Virtual Machine

Fusion iomemory iodrive PCIe Application Accelerator Performance Testing

HPSA Agent Characterization

Status of Open Source and commercial IPv6 firewall implementations

Xen and the Art of Distributed Virtual Machine Management

The Bus (PCI and PCI-Express)

CSE 265: System and Network Administration

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6. Stanislav Polášek ELOS Technologies

How To Test For Performance And Scalability On A Server With A Multi-Core Computer (For A Large Server)

Case Study: Load Testing and Tuning to Improve SharePoint Website Performance

A Comparison of Oracle Performance on Physical and VMware Servers

CT LANforge-FIRE VoIP Call Generator

Corporate VPN Using Mikrotik Cloud Feature. By SOUMIL GUPTA BHAYA Mikortik Certified Trainer

Virtualization and Performance NSRC

ivos Technical Requirements V For Current Clients as of June 2014

Adobe LiveCycle ES Update 1 System Requirements Adobe LiveCycle ES Foundation-based solution components

Tableau Server 7.0 scalability

Server Monitoring. AppDynamics Pro Documentation. Version Page 1

Implementing Large-Scale Autonomic Server Monitoring Using Process Query Systems. Christopher Roblee Vincent Berk George Cybenko

farmerswife Contents Hourline Display Lists 1.1 Server Application 1.2 Client Application farmerswife.com

Gigabit Ethernet Design

A Highly Versatile Virtual Data Center Ressource Pool Benefits of XenServer to virtualize services in a virtual pool

Load and Performance Testing

ACANO SOLUTION VIRTUALIZED DEPLOYMENTS. White Paper. Simon Evans, Acano Chief Scientist

Symantec NetBackup Enterprise Server and Server 7.x OS Software Compatibility List

Packet Capture in 10-Gigabit Ethernet Environments Using Contemporary Commodity Hardware

Datzilla. Error Reporting and Tracking for NOAA Data

An Oracle White Paper March Load Testing Best Practices for Oracle E- Business Suite using Oracle Application Testing Suite

STRESS TESTING OF HOST IDENTITY PROTOCOL (HIP) IMPLEMENTATIONS

Benchmarking FreeBSD. Ivan Voras

Monitoring high-speed networks using ntop. Luca Deri

Full and Para Virtualization

Laboratory Report. An Appendix to SELinux & grsecurity: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Mandatory Access Control & Access Control List Implementations

A Plan for the Continued Development of the DNS Statistics Collector

SIGMOD RWE Review Towards Proximity Pattern Mining in Large Graphs

PARALLELS SERVER BARE METAL 5.0 README

Exploiting Remote Memory Operations to Design Efficient Reconfiguration for Shared Data-Centers over InfiniBand

Heroix Longitude Quick Start Guide V7.1

How to choose a suitable computer

DNA. White Paper. DNA White paper Version: 1.08 Release Date: 1 st July, 2015 Expiry Date: 31 st December, Ian Silvester DNA Manager.

PARALLELS SERVER 4 BARE METAL README

LCMON Network Traffic Analysis

Scalable Cloud Computing Solutions for Next Generation Sequencing Data

Performance tuning Xen

Cloud.com CloudStack Community Edition 2.1 Beta Installation Guide

8Gb Fibre Channel Adapter of Choice in Microsoft Hyper-V Environments

AppDynamics Lite Performance Benchmark. For KonaKart E-commerce Server (Tomcat/JSP/Struts)

Central Management System

VMware Server 2.0 Essentials. Virtualization Deployment and Management

Adaptec: Snap Server NAS Performance Study

Performance brief for IBM WebSphere Application Server 7.0 with VMware ESX 4.0 on HP ProLiant DL380 G6 server

<Insert Picture Here> An Experimental Model to Analyze OpenMP Applications for System Utilization

Agenda. Enterprise Application Performance Factors. Current form of Enterprise Applications. Factors to Application Performance.

Transcription:

Testing DNS Performance limits the Final Chapter Research by ISC for CAIDA Funded by NSF David Boggs, lead investigator Brian Reid, writer and reporter

DNSPERF Project overview Build testbed big enough to test.com,.net TLD service Test its maximum capacity (query rate at server overload point) Reconfigure to use DDNS for updates, IXFR for distribution Test under load, find maximum

Physical testbed 13 affordable COTS servers 1 Stealth master for IXFR sourcing Non-blocking GB ethernet Load generator Update generator Monitoring

Logical diagram

Physical diagram

What hardware? Affordable under limited budget ($100K available to buy 16 servers) Candidates: Sun X4200, HP DL140G3, Iron Systems I-class, M- class (Intel Xeon and AMD28x) Must run open-source OS Choose by memory performance

Hardware test results L1 Memtest MB/sec LMbench Bandwidt h MB/sec L1 calibrator (NS for miss) LMbench latency (NS) STREAM Copy (MB/sec) STREAM Add (MB/sec) STREAM Triad (MB/sec) HP DL140/G3 49058 2984 3.07 72 2586 2884 2890 Sun x4200 22886 2316 3.48 83 1724 1896 1893 AMD254 Sun x4200 21251 2368 3.73 83 1816 1994 1958 AMD285 Iron Systems M (AMD) 19717-4.08 - - - - Iron Systems I (Intel) 19607 2047 6.82 109 1309 1329 1524 HP Celestica 16331 1303 5.07 155 1122 1254 1138

Hardware decision HP DL140/G3 Surprised that Intel processors outperformed AMD for these tests Able to afford 16GB RAM in each (8 pairs of matched 1GB parts)

What software? BIND 9.4 OS: Test these, pick the fastest Linux (Gentoo, Fedora), FreeBSD (6, 7), Solaris 10, NetBSD 4, OpenBSD 4.1, Windows 2003 Server, Windows XP Pro64

What test? Loaded server with.pt zone Used queries from 48-hour F-Root capture, sent with queryperf Ramped query rate until server limit reached Ran test at server limit for 1 hour (1.13 millioin queries)

OS Performance queries/sec Linux-Gentoo Kernel 2.6.20.7 92327 Solaris-10 SunOS 5.11 snv-64a 41306 Linux-Fedora Kernel 2.6.20.7 86732 NetBSD 4.0-beta2 36331 FreeBSD 7-current 200708 83089 OpenBSD 4.1-current 200705 35237 FreeBSD 6-stable 200708 54076 Windows 2003 Server SP2 5.2.3790 22548 Solaris-10 SunOS 5.10 120012-14 53539 Windows XP Pro SP2 5.2.3790 19888 FreeBSD 6.2-release 50611 Windows 2000 Pro SP4 5.0.2195 18957

Test data stream 48-hour capture from F-Root 414931073 requests (38.8% failed) Avg rate (req/sec) = 2401.2 95%ile burst = 3011.0 Max burst = 3921.9

Test data stream

Testing with.com Used COM zone from 5 Oct 2007 Split into 2 parts Each part about 87,000,000 entries One server for each part Raw zone slice file sizes 3GB each

New numbers We presented some numbers in November 2007. Today s numbers are different. Two sources of differences: COM zone split into slices to fit memory BIND stderr now piped to /dev/null (profiling showed lots of time wasted in console error messages)

Testing with COM in 2 slices OS Linux-Fedora FreeBSD-7-RC1 Linux-Gentoo Solaris-10 (Edition of 8/07) Solaris-10 (Edition of 5/07) FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE NetBSD-4-current Queries/sec average across slices 78,701 75,177 70,223 63,954 61,027 55,866 53,127 32,129

Measuring update performance After measuring server performance on fixed zone, we measure rate at which we can update that zone. Updates use RFC2136 protocols and standard BIND tools Update stream was synthetic

DDNS updates to COM We sent 10,000 DDNS updates to BIND 9.1.1-P1 at maximum speed. Zone being updated was 50% slice of COM, one server per slice. Table shows rate at which updates can be committed to stable storage. We believe the FreeBSD 6.2 anomaly to be a compiler or config bug that omitted fsync calls.

COM update rate limits OS FreeBSD-7RC2 FreeBSD-6.2-Stable FreeBSD-6.2-Release NetBSD-4-Current Solaris-10 5/07 ed Solaris-10 8/07 ed Linux-Gentoo Linux-Fedora Slice 1 93.46 89.52 471.70 80.32 87.80 63.21 42.07 22.29 Slice 2 82.85 77.34 446.23 81.77 83.54 64.10 42.76 15.07

Final test: query during update Measured performance of COM zone during DDNS update and IXFR. Made slight modification to BIND 9.4.2 for this test (disabled periodic write to stable storage, since this is not master copy of zone) Measured for signed and unsigned zones.

Notes on the test and results Recall that DDNS updates to COM zone max out around 90/sec So the test sequence 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128 updates/sec is really 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,90 This test performed only with FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE

Query reply rate of server under update via IXFR Updates / second 0 4 8 16 32 64 128* Unsigned zone 69,400 67,600 68,100 67,400 60,900 60,408 60,361 Signed zone 61,200 60,100 58,500 58,000 54,900 51,200 50,800 *DDNS updates of master maxed at 90/second

Conclusions Open source software and commodity hardware are up to the task of serving large real zones Real-world COM update rates average only 2-4/second, peaked at 10/second during 2006 and 2007. Signed zone service is only 10-15% slower than unsigned Slicing a zone for multiple servers works fine. Constant zone update does not significantly degrade server s query-response performance.

For more information ISC Tech Note TN-2008-1 ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dns_perf/isc-tn-2008-1.pdf Contact info@isc.org to inquire about research access to this testbed (it is available to other researchers)