<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-04-30 00:49, Sten Carlsen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:517F777D.4070606@s-carlsen.dk" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Don't forget that most users will get the address out of "some"
cache, not directly from the authoritative servers.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Absolutely. This is even more true in our case as many of our
clients are serve very local areas and 2-3 ISPs and 3-4 mobile
providers probably cover 90%+ of their clients.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-04-29 21:48, Chris Buxton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1D6D791D-3EE2-4D1D-AC7C-307A7B713D82@buxtonfamily.us"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">RTT means almost always hitting the fastest server.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
My concern with relying on RTT is that since most of our sites are
very low volume, will it be effective or does it work better when a
host has higher traffic? How long do resolvers remember a particular
NS's RTT?<br>
<br>
We have a handful of Europe based clients, but their number is quite
small, so I'm not sure if we'd be significantly hurting the majority
by introducing a high-latency server into the mix or not, or even
how to evaluate the results.<br>
<br>
I realize I've probably spent more time thinking about it than I'll
possibly save anyone else anyway, so perhaps that's my answer.<br>
<br>
I appreciate all the input.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dave Warren
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.hireahit.com/">http://www.hireahit.com/</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren">http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>