high availiblity DNS

[Ramin K]

At 10:58 AM 6/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Ramin K <ramin at badapple.net> writes:
> >       We'd like to run three or more boxes each with 4 or more 
> processes of
> >named each depending on the max number of requests our platform can deliver
> >per instance of named.
>
>I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that multiple copies of identical
>nameds on the same machine don't help.  For greater availability, run more
>name servers on more different machines, ideally geographically dispersed.
>(Actually I don't mean geographically, I mean according to the topology of
>the internet.)
>
>Find other people with similar interests and similar DNS loads, and become
>secondaries for each other, to your mutual benefit.  You can gain a truly
>amazing amount of redundancy this way, if you work on it.
>

Availability, I think we can handle internally, what's bothering me is the 
sheer volume of requests we need to keep up with. Sorry I didn't really 
make that apparent in the email. We are already seeing drops and we've only 
moved 15% of the traffic over to our own DNS system. Rather then buy 12 
more machines we're looking at using the existing servers to the limit of 
their CPU/RAM capacity.

Ramin