caching DNS performance

Nate Campi nate at
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
>     nameserver?

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 and root at

"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 mailing list