From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EEDF21F18A for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hm4so1327194wib.2 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/4pVv2fFp9AJYA88smWhj1/tTj6errOcHl+ju3n4e6s=; b=YbdqnZ41t49zKBtnDq5NB0jm4Oc69mTla4FO1Bya7aan+ErewTeF/NMjWpYnUtSFu+ SEkLN5hlaENdZHsQnQYGhcKmlDx6P0kzOImvdU0Bw+Lc6E51cFoTQUK28EHe8UwpwG2X 2pkfjb5W9Pz93QXXGY4KOA5RiYbjyhsuf3IT/41nvE+jER52FrTNe6c8yzF+3IsBidIs qBfrOaJ8XnFgcSEuwUF6pG/NhsYr2UP/SSi+8yGZDeAQMElBO7nPhvPn9q7MEwwf442V YlhZkIC9Gff6ZB86RVQEI0r/R8tRH1J+OFEt+0VZ7o5h4yJgS1kJpLOr/t7sTbHt5Knc HbrA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.188.169 with SMTP id gb9mr6430129wic.17.1394996427295; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.8.1 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:00:27 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] namebench - dns testing tool X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:00:30 -0000 dnsmasq is now doing a few more lookups than it used to. This is a good test to stress it out. I note that the algorithm for determining the "best" dns server in this test is not what I'd chose - it chooses the best "averag= e" as near as I can tell, and the difference in performance between a local dns server and a remote one is .8ms vs 32ms on the test I just ran - so I'll take .8 30% of the time rather than 32ms all the time. Still, a pretty comprehensive test, and I enjoyed watching all the queries go by without a crash or observable memory growth in dnsmasq. works on mac, windows, and linux (And is written in python) https://code.google.com/p/namebench/ still looking for a high performance dnssec validation testing tool --=20 Dave T=E4ht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.= html