ubject: Re: [Pdns-users] pdns-recursor performance
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:29:14AM +0200, Leen Besselink wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:30:25AM -0700, Brad Dameron wrote:
> > And you will see your response times drop from 1-2 seconds to milliseconds.
> > I did a lot of testing
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:29:14AM +0200, Leen Besselink wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:30:25AM -0700, Brad Dameron wrote:
> > And you will see your response times drop from 1-2 seconds to milliseconds.
> > I did a lot of testing of this and pdns-recursor is definitely the best out
> > there
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:29:14AM +0200, Leen Besselink wrote:
> I can't find the graph. The graph I've seen shows PowerDNS and bind pretty
> close together. Which I found a bit strange.
That was BIND before they did source port randomisation, which we've been
doing since 2006.
Bert
--
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:30:25AM -0700, Brad Dameron wrote:
> And you will see your response times drop from 1-2 seconds to milliseconds. I
> did a lot of testing of this and pdns-recursor is definitely the best out
> there.
>
> Brad
>
Hi Brad,
Did you also test Unbound ( www.unbound.net
@mailman.powerdns.com
Subject: [Pdns-users] pdns-recursor performance
A big congrats on the performance of the pdns-recursor.
We recently switched from bind8 to bind9 (because of the recent dns
vulnerabilities) then to pdns-recursor (because of performance and
stability issues).
After the upgrade to
A big congrats on the performance of the pdns-recursor.
We recently switched from bind8 to bind9 (because of the recent dns
vulnerabilities) then to pdns-recursor (because of performance and
stability issues).
After the upgrade to pdns-recursor cpu utilisation dropped to 10% from
50% with bi
