Martineau
Part of the Furniture
Apologies.
you did actually download v3.10 beta, but I stupidly didn't change the version number since the feature is experimental, but I have now updated it on GitHub 'dev' branchUnbound unbound_manager (Manager/Installer utility for unbound - Recursive DNS Server)
- Thread starter Martineau
- Start date
you did actually download v3.10 beta, but I stupidly didn't change the version number since the feature is experimental, but I have now updated it on GitHub 'dev' branch
kernol
Very Senior Member
As requested ...
Code:
Version=3.09
Local md5=f99c48a3a5e7393490b6b21919b62a1a
Github md5=f99c48a3a5e7393490b6b21919b62a1a
/jffs/addons/unbound/unbound_manager.md5 md5=f99c48a3a5e7393490b6b21919b62a1a
Router Configuration recommended pre-reqs status:
[✔] Swapfile=2097148 kB
[✔] DNS Filter=ON
[✔] DNS Filter=ROUTER
[✔] WAN: Use local caching DNS server as system resolver=NO
[✔] Enable local NTP server=YES
[✔] Enable DNS Rebind protection=NO
[✔] Enable DNSSEC support=NO
Options: Auto Reply='y' for User Selectable Options ('4') Performance Tweaks
[✔] unbound CPU/Memory Performance tweaks
[✔] Router Graphical GUI statistics TAB installed
[✔] unbound-control FAST response ENABLED
unbound Memory/Cache:
'key-cache-size:' 8388608 (8.00 MB)
'msg-cache-size:' 8388608 (8.00 MB) 1% used 155473 (151.83 KB)
'rrset-cache-size:' 16777216 (16.00 MB) 2% used 491235 (479.72 KB)
System Memory/Cache:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 255676 116748 138928 0 2008 19820
-/+ buffers/cache: 94920 160756
Swap: 2097148 0 2097148and "s" ...
Code:
total.num.queries=1136 total.requestlist.avg=1.04955 total.recursion.time.median=0.752877
total.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 total.requestlist.max=16 total.tcpusage=0
total.num.cachehits=476 total.requestlist.overwritten=0 msg.cache.count=834
total.num.cachemiss=660 total.requestlist.exceeded=0 rrset.cache.count=2458
total.num.prefetch=349 total.requestlist.current.all=0 infra.cache.count=844
total.num.expired=335 total.requestlist.current.user=0 key.cache.count=97
total.num.recursivereplies=660 total.recursion.time.avg=1.017393
Summary: Cache Hits success=41.00%Thanks - have yet to try fresh install with command line - which I assume you got from here ...
https://github.com/MartineauUK/Unbo...-the-commandline-the-default-is-advanced-mode
Last edited:
Martineau
Part of the Furniture
For my recent two threads configuration, after 12 hours the requests seem to be split pretty much 50-50 between them
i.e. Avg=87.00%, Thread 0=87.00% and Thread 1=87.00%
Code:
A:Option ==> s
total.num.queries=31212 total.num.expired=2934 total.requestlist.exceeded=0 total.tcpusage=0
total.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 total.num.recursivereplies=3878 total.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=3413
total.num.cachehits=27334 total.requestlist.avg=1.39012 total.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=9005
total.num.cachemiss=3878 total.requestlist.max=26 total.recursion.time.avg=0.117486 infra.cache.count=2969
total.num.prefetch=3730 total.requestlist.overwritten=0 total.recursion.time.median=0.0555293 key.cache.count=453
Summary: Cache Hits success=87.00%
thread0.num.queries=15489 thread0.num.expired=1536 thread0.requestlist.exceeded=0 thread0.tcpusage=0
thread0.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 thread0.num.recursivereplies=1887 thread0.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=3413
thread0.num.cachehits=13602 thread0.requestlist.avg=1.42722 thread0.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=9005
thread0.num.cachemiss=1887 thread0.requestlist.max=26 thread0.recursion.time.avg=0.114474 infra.cache.count=2969
thread0.num.prefetch=1919 thread0.requestlist.overwritten=0 thread0.recursion.time.median=0.0541181 key.cache.count=453
Thread 0: Cache Hits success=87.00%
thread1.num.queries=15723 thread1.num.expired=1398 thread1.requestlist.exceeded=0 thread1.tcpusage=0
thread1.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 thread1.num.recursivereplies=1991 thread1.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=3413
thread1.num.cachehits=13732 thread1.requestlist.avg=1.35297 thread1.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=9005
thread1.num.cachemiss=1991 thread1.requestlist.max=25 thread1.recursion.time.avg=0.120342 infra.cache.count=2969
thread1.num.prefetch=1811 thread1.requestlist.overwritten=0 thread1.recursion.time.median=0.0569405 key.cache.count=453
Thread 1: Cache Hits success=87.00%So if it is deemed worthwhile in keeping the feature to report the cache stats per thread, I will probably drop the original 'average' Summary section, as it can be derived from the individual thread metrics, but also to save screen space.
EDIT: v3.10b2 on GitHub 'dev' no longer displays Average Summary if multiple threads configured.
Code:
e = Exit Script [?]
A:Option ==> s
thread0.num.queries=121 thread0.num.expired=1 thread0.requestlist.exceeded=0 thread0.tcpusage=0
thread0.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 thread0.num.recursivereplies=46 thread0.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=953
thread0.num.cachehits=75 thread0.requestlist.avg=1.4898 thread0.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=5219
thread0.num.cachemiss=46 thread0.requestlist.max=6 thread0.recursion.time.avg=0.127746 infra.cache.count=149
thread0.num.prefetch=3 thread0.requestlist.overwritten=0 thread0.recursion.time.median=0.0538331 key.cache.count=48
Thread 0 Summary: Cache Hits success=61.00%
thread1.num.queries=127 thread1.num.expired=0 thread1.requestlist.exceeded=0 thread1.tcpusage=0
thread1.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 thread1.num.recursivereplies=55 thread1.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=953
thread1.num.cachehits=72 thread1.requestlist.avg=1.67273 thread1.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=5219
thread1.num.cachemiss=55 thread1.requestlist.max=19 thread1.recursion.time.avg=0.149601 infra.cache.count=149
thread1.num.prefetch=0 thread1.requestlist.overwritten=0 thread1.recursion.time.median=0.0959634 key.cache.count=48
Thread 1 Summary: Cache Hits success=56.00%
thread2.num.queries=78 thread2.num.expired=0 thread2.requestlist.exceeded=0 thread2.tcpusage=0
thread2.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 thread2.num.recursivereplies=49 thread2.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=953
thread2.num.cachehits=29 thread2.requestlist.avg=1.59184 thread2.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=5219
thread2.num.cachemiss=49 thread2.requestlist.max=8 thread2.recursion.time.avg=0.109549 infra.cache.count=149
thread2.num.prefetch=0 thread2.requestlist.overwritten=0 thread2.recursion.time.median=0.0643657 key.cache.count=48
Thread 2 Summary: Cache Hits success=37.00%However, I'm sure the jury is still out on the question "On the router, is there any tangible performance benefit in having multiple threads?"
Last edited:
@Martineau, would you consider adding 'Beta' or whatever indication you deem appropriate to the versions downloaded from the 'dev' branch? As for the screen real estate ,just a suggestion to have 's' show the individual threads only, since you already have 's thread' that show the additional information.
Martineau
Part of the Furniture
It is rare for me to advertise the use of the GitHub 'dev' branch, but in the rush (because it was getting late here) I lazily didn't alter the version number for this particular temporary/experimental feature, but I have now corrected this oversight earlier today.
That is what I already proposed in post 1884#
EDIT: v3.10b2 on GitHub 'dev' no longer displays Average Summary if multiple threads configured.
However, whilst there doesn't seem to be any measurable detrimental effects in setting 'num-threads:' > 1 IMHO unless you are an advanced user and manually change other services on the router, there is no point.
Last edited:
joe scian
Very Senior Member
Your total.num.queries=1136 - thats a very very small sample - hardly a basis for calculating final cache stats - get that figure up to somewhere approaching 30000++ then you can make a case for low cache success rate of 40%
Martineau
Part of the Furniture
Thanks,
I've included a patch in v3.10Beta3 available on GitHub 'dev' branch for you to test at your leisure.
kernol
Very Senior Member
I am not and have not been making a case for low cache success rate - just an apparent under-reporting by the stats given.
If I compute the cache hits from the logs I get a high cache count 90%+.
Never mind - thanks for your input ... but I doubt that I will ever get to 30k+ since the numbers reset on every reboot [pity no accumulator].
Strange that with no change to number or type of devices connected to my main router network ... the "reported" cache hits steadily decline in recent weeks - but I used to [within a day or two of fresh install or update] have cache hits of 90%.
Maybe its Covid-19
... need to haul out my ultra-violet light - or try a disinfectant injection. Cheers.
Last edited:
Safemode
Regular Contributor
Code:
A:Option ==> s
thread0.num.queries=3361 thread0.num.expired=1314 thread0.requestlist.exceeded=0 thread0.tcpusage=0
thread0.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 thread0.num.recursivereplies=941 thread0.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=7364
thread0.num.cachehits=2420 thread0.requestlist.avg=0.63709 thread0.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=7248
thread0.num.cachemiss=941 thread0.requestlist.max=31 thread0.recursion.time.avg=0.346957 infra.cache.count=3051
thread0.num.prefetch=1561 thread0.requestlist.overwritten=0 thread0.recursion.time.median=0.104239 key.cache.count=497
Thread 0 Summary: Cache Hits success=72.00%
thread1.num.queries=3314 thread1.num.expired=1297 thread1.requestlist.exceeded=0 thread1.tcpusage=0
thread1.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 thread1.num.recursivereplies=946 thread1.requestlist.current.all=0 msg.cache.count=7364
thread1.num.cachehits=2368 thread1.requestlist.avg=0.787607 thread1.requestlist.current.user=0 rrset.cache.count=7248
thread1.num.cachemiss=946 thread1.requestlist.max=38 thread1.recursion.time.avg=0.320597 infra.cache.count=3051
thread1.num.prefetch=1507 thread1.requestlist.overwritten=0 thread1.recursion.time.median=0.0971741 key.cache.count=497
Thread 1 Summary: Cache Hits success=71.00%
unbound (pid 11696 11499) is running... uptime: 0 Days, 14:38:39 version: 1.10.0 # rgnldo Github Version=v1.09 Martineau update (Date Loaded by unbound_manager Fri May 1 20:07:14 DST 2020)
Code:
# no threads and no memory slabs for threads
num-threads: 2
msg-cache-slabs: 1
rrset-cache-slabs: 1
infra-cache-slabs: 1
key-cache-slabs: 1
# tiny memory cache / # prefetch / # gentle on recursion
extended-statistics: yes # v1.06 Martineau for @juched GUI TAB
cache-min-ttl: 300
outgoing-range: 450
num-queries-per-thread: 256
edns-buffer-size: 1232
max-udp-size: 1232
harden-algo-downgrade: yes
harden-referral-path: yes
harden-large-queries: yes
harden-short-bufsize: yes
identity: "DNS"
use-caps-for-id: yes
hide-identity: yes
hide-version: yes
do-not-query-localhost: no
aggressive-nsec: yes
ratelimit: 1000
prefetch: yes
prefetch-key: yes
serve-expired: yes
serve-expired-ttl: 3600
deny-any: yes
Code:
unbound Memory/Cache:
'key-cache-size:' 4194304 (4.00 MB)
'msg-cache-size:' 4194304 (4.00 MB) 27% used 1164354 (1.11 MB)
'rrset-cache-size:' 4194304 (4.00 MB) 28% used 1190198 (1.14 MB)
Last edited:
Martineau
Part of the Furniture
No doubt you are diligently measuring the effects of your tweaks? and it is your prerogative to decide on the settings appropriate for your environment.
However, I'm not saying that the vendor's notes were written with routers in mind, but two of your choices seemingly contradict their published Optimise recommendations (although I haven't recently waded thru' the User Group posts to see if their advice has changed with respect to routers)
i.e.
Code:
Set *-slabs to a power of 2 close to the num-threads value.
Do this for msg-cache-slabs, rrset-cache-slabs, infra-cache-slabs and key-cache-slabs. This reduces lock contention.
Increase the memory size of the cache.
Use roughly twice as much rrset cache memory as you use msg cache memory.Safemode
Regular Contributor
I see your point but i'm going by the optimised forked operation:
Code:
Forked operation
Unbound has a unique mode where it can operate without threading. This can be useful if libevent fails on the platform, for extra performance, or for creating walls between the cores so that one cannot poison another.
To compile for forked operation, before compilation use ./configure --without-pthreads --without-solaris-threads to disable threads and enable forked operation. Because no locking has to be done, the code speeds up (about 10 to 20%).
In the config file, num-threads still specifies the number of cores you want to use (even though it uses processes and not threads). And note that the outgoing-range and cache memory values are all per thread. This means that much more memory is used, as every core uses its own cache. Because every core has its own cache, if one gets cache poisoned, the others are not affected.
# with forked operation
server:
# use all CPUs
num-threads: <number of cores>
msg-cache-slabs: 1
rrset-cache-slabs: 1
infra-cache-slabs: 1
key-cache-slabs: 1
# more cache memory, rrset=msg*2
# total usage is 150m*cores
rrset-cache-size: 100m
msg-cache-size: 50m
# does not depend on number of cores
outgoing-range: 950
num-queries-per-thread: 512
# Larger socket buffer. OS may need config.
so-rcvbuf: 4m
Because every process is using at most 1024 file descriptors now, the effective maximum is the number of cores * 1024. The config above uses 950 per process, for 4 processes gives a respectable 3800 sockets. The number of queries per thread is half the number of sockets, to guarantee that every query can get a socket, and some to spare for queries-for-nameservers.
Using forked operation together with libevent is also possible. It may be useful to force the OS to service the filedescriptors for different processes, instead of threads. This may have (radically) different performance if the underlying network stack uses (slow) lookup structures per-process.
tomsk
Very Senior Member
the entware unbound is compiled for threading isn't it?
dave14305
Part of the Furniture
Code:
--without-pthreads --without-solaris-threads --without-libeventtomsk
Very Senior Member
bluzfanmr1
Senior Member
Yesterday I came back to unbound from NextDNS and installed it via the one line method and not through amtm. I am using the default unbound.conf file. After just under 20 hours my cache hits success rate is 99%. That can't be right can it? Seems odd that I went from being unable to get higher than 50% and now I'm at nearly 100%. I am going to dig into this later today when I have more time.
Code:
total.num.queries=909569 total.requestlist.exceeded=0
total.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 total.requestlist.current.all=0
total.num.cachehits=907772 total.requestlist.current.user=0
total.num.cachemiss=1797 total.recursion.time.avg=0.216086
total.num.prefetch=835 total.recursion.time.median=0.165271
total.num.expired=805 total.tcpusage=0
total.num.recursivereplies=1797 msg.cache.count=3231
total.requestlist.avg=1.03837 rrset.cache.count=9068
total.requestlist.max=18 infra.cache.count=2689
total.requestlist.overwritten=0 key.cache.count=557
Summary: Cache Hits success=99.00%kernol
Very Senior Member
Wish I had thought of that - nice easy quick fixMy cash hit rate is low. I need to visit an ATM.
...Hi Guys any idea why i am getting the below error ? :
Bad address
[1588460622] unbound-checkconf[14383:0] fatal error: control-key-file: "(null)" does not exist
***ERROR INVALID unbound configuration - use option 'vx' to correct 'unbound.conf' or 'rl' to load a valid configuration file
Thank you!
Bad address
[1588460622] unbound-checkconf[14383:0] fatal error: control-key-file: "(null)" does not exist
***ERROR INVALID unbound configuration - use option 'vx' to correct 'unbound.conf' or 'rl' to load a valid configuration file
Thank you!
Mutzli
Very Senior Member
Hopefully the stimulus check from the IRS should help out with your low cash rate.My cash hit rate is low. I need to visit an ATM.
Similar threads
Similar threads
Similar threads
-
Unbound Unbound - Warning WAN: Use local caching DNS server as system resolver=YES
- Started by johnSmb
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Unbound Force all DNS requests through Unbound using iptables?- Started by muffintastic
- Replies: 18
-
-
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
ASUS BE88U frequently drops my AI Mesh connection on my AX11000- Started by garett_09
- Replies: 0
-
Would you buy a 3 pack of the ASUS BT10?
- Started by howie411
- Replies: 2
Support SNBForums w/ Amazon
If you'd like to support SNBForums, just use this link and buy anything on Amazon. Thanks!
Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest
Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!