Recommended setup with large cache memory

[Brad Knowles]

At 9:02 AM -0400 2005-09-12, Danny Mayer wrote:

>  No it wouldn't. It would take a big performance hit if it had to write
>  the cache to disk. There's no need for it since if the data is lost it
>  goes and fetches it again.

	Yes, BIND would take a serious performance hit in this case. 
That's why I'm suggesting that if BIND actually did that, then 
replacing that mechanism with an in-memory caching solution (such as 
memcached) would be an improvement.  Since BIND already caches all 
that information in memory, I see no advantage to replacing that 
in-memory caching scheme with another.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.