Re: [dnsext] draft-ietf-dnsext-dns-tcp-requirements-00 / a way forward

[Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>]

> From: Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk
> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:16:06 +0100
> 
> ... - modifying TCP itself is not (as far as I'm concerned) on the table.

for the purpose of this draft i think that's a safe assumption.

> FWIW, yesterday I performed some benchmark tests against Bind 9.6.
> 
> Over TCP/IP I was able to do 3000 qps.  That was with a brand new TCP 
> connection for each query, with no parallelisation.  The client code was 
> literally:
> 
> while (1) {
>   socket(...);
>   connect(...);
>   write(2 byte len);
>   write(request)
>   read(2 byte len);
>   read(response);
>   close();
> }
> 
> The same server will do about 23000 qps over UDP.
> 
> Personally I think that TCP performance is pretty good.  I expect that 
> with more queries in flight at the same time the effective performance 
> might be double that at least.

what would the performance be if the server stopped receiving client FINs?

> Mostly what I'd like to be able to do is dispel (or at least mitigate)
> the FUD about TCP as a transport mechanism for DNS.

"bring it on."  :-)