Re: [PATCH] unbound: Update to 1.6.0

[Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3688 bytes --]

Hi,

As far as I can see, it uses one thread per processor as set through the
init-file.

Here, the generated 'tuning.conf' contains "num-threads: 2", which is
ok, the machine has two cores.

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.

Best,
Matthias

On 16.12.2016 17:13, Michael Tremer wrote:
> What else is it using for threading right now?
> 
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 16:44 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> unbound 1.6.0 - with reverted commit - is running here since a few hours
>> without seen problems so far - we'll see.
>> 
>> One question, being curious:
>> 
>> Could it make sense to compile 'unbound' using '--with-pthreads' for
>> threading support?
>> 
>> I got the following in '_build.ipfire.log' right now:
>> 
>> ...
>> 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
>> ...
>> 
>> 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...
>> 
>> Best,
>> Matthias
>> 
>> On 16.12.2016 12:59, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > that server is not available from the internet. But that you get that IP
>> > address
>> > is enough for me. That didn't happen before.
>> > 
>> > I will revert that commit and we will see in the testing if this raises any
>> > problems again...
>> > 
>> > Best,
>> > -Michael
>> > 
>> > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 12:47 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > Hi,
>> > > 
>> > > On 16.12.2016 11:28, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > Did you try reverting this one and test if things like
>> > > > "pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org" resolve again?
>> > > 
>> > > 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.
>> > > 
>> > > No connection through browser, ping loss on both = 100%.
>> > > 
>> > > With or without, I get the following answer with 'dig':
>> > > 
>> > > ...
>> > > root(a)ipfire: /etc/unbound # dig pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org
>> > > 
>> > > ; <<>> 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, ADDITIONAL: 1
>> > > 
>> > > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
>> > > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
>> > > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
>> > > ;pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org.     IN      A
>> > > 
>> > > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
>> > > pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org. 293  IN      A       172.28.1.165
>> > > 
>> > > ;; 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
>> > > ...
>> > > 
>> > > Best,
>> > > Matthias
>> > > 
>> > 
>> 
>