<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 04/30/13 03:30, Dave Warren wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:517F812E.9020207@hireahit.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.hireahit.com/">http://www.hireahit.com/</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren">http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren</a>
</pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
I may be late to the party, but I am just finishing a project to
move LCR's tertiary name server. Over the years, I have been amazed
at how small and quick DNS traffic is. With caching, it gets even
quicker as far as the client is concerned.<br>
<br>
Even with a few Europe based clients, dns won't be the slow part.
And after reading some material on dns diversity, I decided to move
one of my name servers to a hosting company. I picked a low priced
company with a virtual machine running OpenSuSE. Installed NAMED
plus the RRL patches from source and I was done. Picked up one IPv4
address and one IPv6 address and starting configuring zones. <br>
<br>
The virtual runs nothing else and I am paying $20/month(should
convert to yearly billing and save a couple more bucks). I am in
the Chicago area and the virtual machine is in Dallas, TX. Sounds
like excellent geo diversity to me. Plus Texas has it's own power
grid. So we even have major power grid separation.<br>
<br>
The dns diversity article I found stated that it's better to get the
right IP address and not be able to get to that IP address than to
not be able to find any DNS servers for the zone. Email is handled
more politely in that respect especially. Plus I remember that the
Internet is a best effort network. There is no guarantied
connectivity on the Internet.<br>
<br>
Lyle Giese<br>
LCR Computer Services, Inc.<br>
<br>
P.S. Maybe you would like to use that box I have for a tertiary
server. It's got plenty of cpu cycles and extra bandwidth under
that hosting package!<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>