Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:07:34 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov <vas@mpeks.tomsk.su> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND Message-ID: <20111228130734.GA23763@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EFAE80D.9040900@my.gd> References: <20111228075422.GA18064@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <4EFAE80D.9040900@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > If you're trying to build up a cache to improve performance and response > time, here's your scenario: > > DNS C, forward to DNS A,B for all queries > DNS D, forward to DNS B,A for all queries > > Your cache will start building up and only responses that are not cached > will be taken from your NS A and B servers. Sorry, I fail to see how this is any better than two independent DNS servers. Perhaps a variant like DNS C, forward to DNS A DNS D, forward to DNS A would be close to the goal of cache consolidation. Matthew Seaman wrote: > > If you want to consolidate caches then probably your best bet is to have > fewer, but larger resolvers. A pretty standard server class machine > dedicated to recursive DNS should be easily capable of supporting many > thousands of clients. You are certainly right. > > DNS is not really a fruitful target for reducing traffic volume -- there > really isn't that much of it compared to all other types in any case. > It's also pretty critical to the perceived performance of your networks. > Complicating and slowing down the DNS lookup path just makes everything > look slow. I just wanted the servers to benefit from each other's caches. That could speed up the lookups. -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111228130734.GA23763>