From: "Steven Levine" Received: from [192.168.100.201] (HELO mail.2rosenthals.com) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.10) with ESMTPS id 9651228 for ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com; Sun, 12 May 2024 19:13:16 -0400 Received: from secmgr-va.2rosenthals.com ([50.73.8.217]:58864 helo=mail2.2rosenthals.com) by mail.2rosenthals.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1s6INS-0004KT-2K for ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com; Sun, 12 May 2024 19:13:10 -0400 Received: from mta-102a.earthlink-vadesecure.net ([51.81.61.66]:42029) by mail2.2rosenthals.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1s6INL-0004X5-1I for ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com; Sun, 12 May 2024 19:13:03 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; bh=/wewNcDIUSQtc7W3PTuHCV0Vc3OZupBI3rgB6i T/MsM=; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=earthlink.net; h=from:reply-to:subject: date:to:cc:resent-date:resent-from:resent-to:resent-cc:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post: list-owner:list-archive; q=dns/txt; s=dk12062016; t=1715555583; x=1716160383; b=cNsJb60xicklK3u7WNIPDXPvbwhdOpIivw8GAOlJ4l1f1F0jWENuSOw lZlu6M72zRh0ZsUPZUVxIQGAVs9hjGTtr1iTEg8IRXbHIMPJqUZzBt6xdxpPl+hM2VUeAgp uF2UwnSvyWhmOQ4NpMxgd6RkMX8ENhLxAmRFnXQbu6eryqIJqnd5T9nLeYN5HcWB36JiYuK DnfBOJs14PX9RmP55sy7w3UWVGlT+B238yOFo0gCxKsfHyexVeOe+jW0KwLSxQ7GJQFn9Z8 PfL5BFVHuSmpTm4R/CfDKMQCW7/BAyH2a5HDsaVRG2Ljq2vtlaEs/0d9/daPNuXs6MyKm5z eNA== Received: from slamain ([108.193.255.37]) by vsel1nmtao02p.internal.vadesecure.com with ngmta id 8059f534-17cee0b6872f95d7; Sun, 12 May 2024 23:13:02 +0000 Message-ID: <66414bc5.10.mr2ice.fgrirsq@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 16:07:49 -0700 To: "eCS ISP Mailing List" In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [eCS-ISP] Bind 9.11.37 issue X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.24/60 In , on 05/12/24 at 10:45 PM, "Massimo S." said: Hi Massimo, >i tried to improve performances >i've seen that even with rsync is slower thant the previous server Virtualization adds a layer of very complex software. The result can and do vary. Sometimes, the applications run faster in the VM compared runing an real hardware. Sometimes not. >> Have you tried running with one core, just in case this is causing your >> bind problem? It's unlikely, but you should test this. >impossible, sorry >too much stuff running on this VM Nothing is impossible. Perhaps bind should be running in it's own VM? Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Levine" Warp/DIY/BlueLion etc. www.scoug.com www.arcanoae.com www.warpcave.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------