Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@luke.cpl.net> To: Jason Wells <jcwells@u.washington.edu> Cc: Kris Kirby <kirbykb@airnet.net>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Good nameserver system? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971007233227.1577B-100000@luke.cpl.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971008053520.007b4340@jcwells.deskmail.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> think serving up DNS resolves would be even less taxing. > > I am guessing that a p200 could manage a name service for several ten > thousand DNS requests per day. If a given machine could serve 1 million+ web hits per day, surely a DNS server could serve more than that? DNS would seem to me to be far less taxing than DNS. I seem to remember hearing that Playboy ran one of their web servers on a 5x86 or a very slow Pentium serving 500k hits a day... > Mind you, I am just yakking. Search harder for someone who actually has run > a busy nameserver. I work for a decent sized ISP. We have 2 nameservers one serves all the dialup for a significant number of users. The only thing that gets taxed is RAM. It is running on a P200, but it is also the SMTP/POP3 server, web server, and Radius server. It does other things as well, but that is the majority of its work. I don't even think a big newserver benefits all that much from a super CPU. The biggest bottleneck on a news server is probably hard drive speed. (Or lack therof)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.971007233227.1577B-100000>