> What about the information from top? When comparing RHEL5 and RHEL6 systems,
> I would compare the total CPU usage of the server (out of 100% not 2400% or
> 1600%).
>
> Since the hardware is different, comparing a 16 named threads on a 16 core
> box at ???MHz against a 24 core box with 24 named t
On 21/11/13 14:57, - wrote:
Are others seeing the named process run at 130-180% on RHEL 6? We've
No. Our RHEL6 boxes rune fine.
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
What version of BIND did you have on RHEL5? Does your RHEL6 named get any
better if you try ‘-U #’ (where # is half or less your cpu count)?
_S
On Nov 21, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 21/11/13 14:57, - wrote:
>
>> Are others seeing the named process run at 130-180% on RHEL 6? We'v
Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/21/2013 9:35 AM:
On 21/11/13 14:57, - wrote:
Are others seeing the named process run at 130-180% on RHEL 6? We've
No. Our RHEL6 boxes rune fine.
Fine here as well...
Here is a decently busy CentOS 6 system w/ latest BIND from RPM, 2x Xeon
CPU E5-2640
On 21/11/13 17:30, Sean Channel wrote:
What version of BIND did you have on RHEL5? Does your RHEL6 named get
any better if you try ‘-U #’ (where # is half or less your cpu
count)?
We moved from RHEL5 9.8.3 to RHEL6 9.8.3, and saw no performance change.
We then upgraded through various versions
- wrote the following on 11/20/2013 12:30 PM:
Depending on your OS and Bind settings, Bind may be performing IPv6/
queries in parallel to IPv4/A queries. If IPv6 is disabled on your RHEL5
server I suspect they may only be performing IPv4/A queries during
recursion. You might check if this is
On 20.11.13 09:46, - wrote:
Daniel, what do you see the load as? I see 4.6% CPU usage (100% possible
- 95.4% idle).
Wondering the same. Don't consider 0.00 high load. ;-)
:-) I guess I need to be a little better at explaining my self. It
made perfect sense to me.
I am talking about the na
> Depending on your OS and Bind settings, Bind may be performing IPv6/
> queries in parallel to IPv4/A queries. If IPv6 is disabled on your RHEL5
> server I suspect they may only be performing IPv4/A queries during
> recursion. You might check if this is, at least in part, responsible for the
>
- wrote the following on 11/20/2013 10:46 AM:
Daniel, what do you see the load as? I see 4.6% CPU usage (100% possible
- 95.4% idle).
Wondering the same. Don't consider 0.00 high load. ;-)
:-) I guess I need to be a little better at explaining my self. It
made perfect sense to me.
I am ta
>> Daniel, what do you see the load as? I see 4.6% CPU usage (100% possible
>> - 95.4% idle).
>
>
> Wondering the same. Don't consider 0.00 high load. ;-)
>
:-) I guess I need to be a little better at explaining my self. It
made perfect sense to me.
I am talking about the named process which can
-Original Message-
From: Blake Hudson
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:03 AM
To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org"
Subject: Re: RHEL 6 CPU load
>Daniel, what do you see the load as? I see 4.6% CPU usage (100% possible
>- 95.4% idle).
Wondering the same. Don't co
Daniel, what do you see the load as? I see 4.6% CPU usage (100% possible
- 95.4% idle).
I'm not sure which versions of BIND you were using on RHEL5, but the
newer versions do tend to use more CPU usage (I'll assume due to new
features, patches, etc in the BIND code).
--Blake
- wrote the fol
We recently upgraded one of our DNS servers to RHEL 6. The other two
servers are running RHEL 5. The new system is showing much higher CPU load
than the other two (RHEL 5 machines sit around 11-15%). I am not sure if
this is related to the OS versions or something else. The build procedure
for the
13 matches
Mail list logo
