high availiblity DNS

Alan J Rosenthal flaps at dgp.toronto.edu
Tue Jun 27 01:19:15 UTC 2000


Ramin K <ramin at badapple.net> writes:
>Availability, I think we can handle internally

Well, I spoke of availability because you said "high availability DNS" (see
subject line).  Anyway though, do you truly have sufficiently redundant
connection to the internet that availability can be handled internally?
This is unusual (but not unheard of).

>what's bothering me is the sheer volume of requests we need to keep up with.
>...  We are already seeing drops

I'm just saying that I don't think multiple named processes on one
single-CPU machine will help.  I don't see any realistic analysis of where
the bottleneck is which would cause multiple named processes on the same
machine to help.  They'll take *more* CPU time (same CPU time for each
request plus new context switching overhead), they'll take *more* memory,
they'll take the *same* amount of network bandwidth, they'll put the *same*
load on the machine's network interface hardware (e.g. ethernet card).
You need to throw either more CPUs at the problem, or more networks, or,
most likely, both.  Your message may imply that you have more CPUs in mind
(but not more networks).  My hunch is that this is not the bottleneck,
but I could be wrong.



More information about the bind-users mailing list