From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 29 04:37:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957F716A41C for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:37:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jsimola@gmail.com) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571EB43D48 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:37:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jsimola@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i4so687861wra for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:37:00 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=La36KqeF27hkdr9foJmHZmlGqNJpOMxpJZTd+Rvip/skBIg9q2MO0WqLURIB281Xu7t1ebhbTIer6BgICNiBWrKYPjjqR+ynIqPK4yZzWefbU9sKbDy+7SrG8JEDykyhwMVE522D2FhupdxneI91oyAXg11elx/8HShQ0aEcYgU= Received: by 10.54.2.54 with SMTP id 54mr28895wrb; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.39.65 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8eea040805062821371f8a6b10@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:37:00 -0700 From: Jon Simola To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20050629035544.GA50717@over-yonder.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050628102618.J13559@beck.quonix.net> <20050629035544.GA50717@over-yonder.net> Subject: Re: Thoughts on a large-scale DNS server... X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: jon@abccomm.com List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:37:01 -0000 On 6/28/05, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > CPU? Sure. Memory? Quite probably. Even if you assume each zone > will eat 64k of memory (which I think it a terribly high guess; at > least double what you'd really expect), 11,000 zones will burn less > than 700 meg. I'd probably be tempted to double the memory, just > because memory is cheap&easy, but I doubt you'll be hitting a wall on > it. I'd recommend, if you have the time, to look into djbdns's tinydns. It uses a compiled DB file for speed and size. On the djbdns mailing lists there has been a few posts from some large-scale admins who use it to serve 500,000 zones, using about 300MB of ram on some mid-grade P4 machines handling 500 queries a second. One of the main reasons I remember they had switched was BIND's startup delay. Myself, I've only got 500 zones and it only uses 800K of memory. It's certainly nothing like BIND, here's all the raw source for a single domain, 2 nameservers, a webserver and an MX. (The . record generates an SOA, an NS at a.ns.mecha.ca, and an A for a.ns.mecha.ca -> 207.194.110.192. The & generates the second NS and A record, @ is the MX a.mx.mecha.ca and the A for a.mx.mecha.ca -> 207.194.110.192, and the + is an A) .mecha.ca:207.194.110.192:a &mecha.ca:207.194.110.196:b @mecha.ca:207.194.110.192:a +www.mecha.ca:207.194.110.192 --=20 Jon Simola Systems Administrator ABC Communications