Knowledge Base ISC Main Website Ask a Question/Contact ISC
UDP Listeners - choosing the right value for -U when starting named
Author: Cathy Almond Reference Number: AA-01249 Views: 5227 Created: 2015-02-19 10:49 Last Updated: 2016-01-04 16:23 0 Rating/ Voters

BIND 9.9.0 introduced a new feature to improve performance in multi-threaded environments, particularly those with a large number of processors.  The reasons for this are documented here:

Performance: Multi-threaded I/O  (https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-00629)

In later versions (9.9.6 and 9.10.0) we reduced the default number of UDP listeners per interface from equaling the number of worker threads, to half of that value.

The default setting for the -U option (setting the number of UDP listeners per interface) has been adjusted to improve performance. [RT #35417]

Then in 9.9.9 and 9.10.4, the default is updated again:

On machines with 2 or more processors (CPU), the default value for the number of UDP listeners has been changed to the number of detected processors minus one. [RT #40761]

Essentially, there's no one setting that's correct for every system; the best we can do is pick a value that works well in the largest number of circumstances.

On many platforms, we found that when setting the default UDP listeners to the same as the number of CPUs, there was lock contention between the listeners that slowed the overall system performance down.  So we tested several different -U settings on several different operating systems, and found that on most of the n-processor systems we tried, performance increased until the number of UDP listeners reached n/2, then flattened out, followed by dropping significantly as it approached n.  Therefore n/2 seems to be a better place to start than n.

There are many factors that influence the 'right' choice of -U - including the type of OS, CPU and machine architecture, and also how many interfaces you already have configured to listen on.  If you have a large number of interfaces (virtual or otherwise), setting -U to an even smaller value than n/2 may be best.  In other environments, setting -U to the number of CPUs less one may provided the optimum throughput for your machine.

Our advice is to pick a starting point, and then evaluate (through benchmarking in a test environment, or running for a period with different values in a production environment) what is best for your specific traffic and configuration.  For most n/2 is a good place to start.

While you're bench-marking...

...also take a look at the default value of -n (number of worker threads).  This defaults to the number of CPUs detected, but on systems with very large numbers of CPUs, may not be the best choice.  Particularly when the number of logical CPUs exceeds the number of physical CPUs, setting -n to the number of physical CPUs may improve throughput.





© 2001-2016 Internet Systems Consortium

Please help us to improve the content of our knowledge base by letting us know below how we can improve this article.

If you have a technical question or problem on which you'd like help, please don't submit it here as article feedback.

For assistance with problems and questions for which you have not been able to find an answer in our Knowledge Base, we recommend searching our community mailing list archives and/or posting your question there (you will need to register there first for your posts to be accepted). The bind-users and the dhcp-users lists particularly have a long-standing and active membership.

ISC relies on the financial support of the community to fund the development of its open source software products. If you would like to support future product evolution and maintenance as well having peace of mind knowing that our team of experts are poised to provide you with individual technical assistance whenever you call upon them, then please consider our Professional Subscription Support services - details can be found on our main website.

Feedback
  • There is no feedback for this article
Info Submit Feedback on this Article
Nickname: Your Email: Subject: Comment:
Enter the code below:
Quick Jump Menu