Deadwood 2.9.07 released: Better performance and security

[Sam Trenholme]

> I repeat here the tests with Deadwood 2.9.07, please see the results below:
>
>
> time $(for h in $(cat hosts.txt); do printf "\n\n\n"; dig $h; done >
> test.log)
>
> Deadwood:    3m25.948s
> Unbound:      1m13.523s
>
>
> Namebench:
>
> Deadwood - AVG(ms): 830.77     Min: 0.44     Max: 7604.16     Err: 12
> NoAns:  1
> Unbound -   AVG(ms): 457.22     Min: 0.57     Max: 7002.80     Err: 1
>    NoAns:  0
>
> Regards,
>
> Marlon

Thank you very much for running this test.

I’m going to have to close this issue as “works for me”; these are not
the numbers I am seeing.  I’m seeing slightly better numbers for
Deadwood (under three minutes) and worse numbers for Unbound (nearly
three minutes).  Indeed, Deadwood is faster than Unbound on my system
(Windows XP service pack 3 and all updates).

Looking at the number of errors you’re getting with Deadwood, perhaps
maxprocs is not set high enough for this test and you’re overloading
Deadwood (which can only have 32 pending queries at once unless this
is increased by setting maxprocs).

Maybe someone will come forward and submit a patch that will improve
Deadwood’s performance—there might be something non-standard about how
Linux does sockets that allows considerable speedup if someone knows
the secret recipe, just as Linux has a longstanding “wont fix” issue
that sometimes select() says a socket is non-blocking but that does
not mean the socket is really non-blocking.

When Deadwood was taking 8 minutes to go through the list, it was a
fairly critical issue.  When Deadwood has better performance than
Unbound on some systems but worse performance than Unbound on other
systems, it’s a wishlist issue.

What I would be interested in seeing is particular hostnames that
consistently resolve more slowly in Deadwood thank in Unbound.  If you
can find a single hostname in Unbound that resolves, say, three times
as fast in Unbound with an empty cache than in Deadwood with an empty
cache, I want to know about it.

I’m even more interested in seeing hostnames that Deadwood can not
resolve at all but that Unboung, BIND, or whatever can resolve.  If
people have any of these to report, please let us know on the list.

Again, thank you for your Deadwood performance numbers and for helping
test Deadwood.

- Sam

No, I don’t answer private email about MaraDNS or Deadwood.  Well, I
don’t unless you pay me for my time.