From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] unbound: Update to 1.6.0 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:52:56 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1481906539.13949.294.camel@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9093332920012230290==" List-Id: --===============9093332920012230290== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, it made absolutely NO difference. Binarys were identical, too. 'configure' contains: ... # Check whether --with-pthreads was given. if test "${with_pthreads+set}" =3D set; then : withval=3D$with_pthreads; else withval=3D"yes" fi ... Can it be that its enabled automatically, if no option is given!? *sigh* Best, Matthias On 16.12.2016 17:42, Michael Tremer wrote: > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 17:39 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> As far as I can see, it uses one thread per processor as set through the >> init-file. >>=20 >> Here, the generated 'tuning.conf' contains "num-threads: 2", which is >> ok, the machine has two cores. >=20 > We always set that to the number of active processors, yes. >=20 >> The question is, what differences would compiling with '--with-pthreads' >> make? This option came to my view, but I don't know if this would make >> anything better. >=20 > Try it out them. The number of threads will be the same but it should defin= itely > use pthreads then which is the fastest implmentation of threads in Linux. T= here > is a few things outside glibc, but I cannot imagine that unbound is using > anything else but pthreads already. >=20 > -Michael >=20 >>=20 >> Best, >> Matthias >>=20 >> On 16.12.2016 17:13, Michael Tremer wrote: >> >=20 >> > What else is it using for threading right now? >> >=20 >> > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 16:44 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote: >> > >=20 >> > > Hi, >> > >=20 >> > > unbound 1.6.0 - with reverted commit - is running here since a few hou= rs >> > > without seen problems so far - we'll see. >> > >=20 >> > > One question, being curious: >> > >=20 >> > > Could it make sense to compile 'unbound' using '--with-pthreads' for >> > > threading support? >> > >=20 >> > > I got the following in '_build.ipfire.log' right now: >> > >=20 >> > > ... >> > > checking for the pthreads library -lpthreads... no >> > > checking whether pthreads work without any flags... no >> > > checking whether pthreads work with -Kthread... no >> > > checking whether pthreads work with -kthread... no >> > > checking for the pthreads library -llthread... no >> > > checking whether pthreads work with -pthread... yes >> > > checking for joinable pthread attribute... PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE >> > > checking if more special flags are required for pthreads... no >> > > checking for PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT... yes >> > > checking for pthread_spinlock_t... yes >> > > checking for pthread_rwlock_t... yes >> > > checking if -pthread unused during linking... no >> > > ... >> > >=20 >> > > In this regard, I read >> > > https://www.unbound.net/documentation/howto_optimise.html, but I'm not >> > > so skilled in programming to judge whether this would lead to any >> > > advantages... >> > >=20 >> > > Best, >> > > Matthias >> > >=20 >> > > On 16.12.2016 12:59, Michael Tremer wrote: >> > > >=20 >> > > >=20 >> > > > Hi, >> > > >=20 >> > > > that server is not available from the internet. But that you get tha= t IP >> > > > address >> > > > is enough for me. That didn't happen before. >> > > >=20 >> > > > I will revert that commit and we will see in the testing if this rai= ses >> > > > any >> > > > problems again... >> > > >=20 >> > > > Best, >> > > > -Michael >> > > >=20 >> > > > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 12:47 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote: >> > > > >=20 >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > On 16.12.2016 11:28, Michael Tremer wrote: >> > > > > >=20 >> > > > > >=20 >> > > > > >=20 >> > > > > > Did you try reverting this one and test if things like >> > > > > > "pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org" resolve again? >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > I just tested after adding "qname-minimisation: yes" and >> > > > > "harden-below-nxdomain: yes" to '/etc/unbound/unbound.conf', but >> > > > > neither >> > > > > "pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org" nor its ip-address "172.28.1.165" >> > > > > answered. >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > No connection through browser, ping loss on both =3D 100%. >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > With or without, I get the following answer with 'dig': >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > ... >> > > > > root(a)ipfire: /etc/unbound # dig pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4 <<>> pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org >> > > > > ;; global options: +cmd >> > > > > ;; Got answer: >> > > > > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 45016 >> > > > > ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITION= AL: >> > > > > 1 >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: >> > > > > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 >> > > > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: >> > > > > ;pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org. IN A >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: >> > > > > pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org. 293 IN A 172.28.1.165 >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > ;; Query time: 0 msec >> > > > > ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) >> > > > > ;; WHEN: Fri Dec 16 12:33:28 CET 2016 >> > > > > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 70 >> > > > > ... >> > > > >=20 >> > > > > Best, >> > > > > Matthias >> > > > >=20 >> > > >=20 >> > >=20 >> >=20 >>=20 >=20 --===============9093332920012230290==--