caching DNS performance
nate at wired.com
Mon Feb 25 22:50:35 UTC 2002
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:48:53PM +0100, Bjorn Borud wrote:
> - would I benefit from using BIND 9 instead of BIND 8? if yes,
> what should I keep in mind when setting up BIND 9 as a caching
The general consensus is that BIND 9 is a far slower "caching-only"
nameserver than BIND 8. Don't take my word for it, use queryperf from
the BIND 9.2.0 contrib directory and test both servers on your hardware.
> - if I use more than one machine for caching nameservers, can I set
> up BIND 9 in a hierarchy of nameservers so that I can make them
> collectively cache a larger set -- each server caching a disjoint
> set of hosts?
> - are there other products than BIND 9 that would work better in
> this scenario? (it doesn't really matter if they are commercial)
See here for a description of a very clever caching hierarchy:
Nate Campi Job: hostmaster at lycos.com and root at wired.com
"I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck."
- Rob Pike, commenting on the X Window System.
More information about the bind-users