Bind - one pc,two ips ,two dns servers

[Rashkae]

Christopher Chan wrote:
> Res wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Christopher Chan wrote:
>>
>>> Heh. Glad you tried to support your claims of my lack of skill/knowledge
>>> in running a BIND caching service with a souped up dual Xeon 3Ghz box
>>> loaded with RAM in your other post.
>>>
>>> My guesstimates for 24k queries/sec came from having six mail servers,
>>> each configured to handle 800 connections. The actual figure could well
>>> be much higher.
>>           or lower...
>>
>> I know exactly who you are Chris (from another list) and have done for 
>> some years, and my comment stands, if you cant do 83K queries p/sec, 
>> on same hardware with zero effort, there is a problem somewhere...
> 
> Oh really? I don't really mind if you 'expose' me. Go on. I'd like to 
> know if I am who you think I am because I don't remember exchanging 
> emails with you...
> 
> Oh, yeah there is a problem...with BIND. Nothing out there beats DJB's 
> dnscache and I don't think that has changed in the last three years 
> after I left my job at a service provider. I am more than certain that 
> dnscache on a HP DL360 with 4G of RAM would be able to handle all the 
> mailservers (see below)
> 
>> Oh and *only* 6 mail servers? :)
> 
> :-). 4 sets of servers banging away at 4 dnscache boxes. So really just 
> twenty-something frontline mailservers. Total 200 million smtp 
> transactions handled daily with 40 million mailboxes. Three years ago.
> 
>> and so I trust you dont run a copy of your favourite caching DNS server 
>> on each then, or you use forward first to it... It might be interesting to 
>> shut bind down on all our mail servers falling back to cust1 and see what 
>> happens on top of customer traffic, those years old G3's do SFA work, but 
>> they exceed the 5 years use life of our internal policies, might as well 
>> let em go out with a bang.
> 
> Nope, I needed the cpu cycles and them mailserver boxes used to have 
> their own local dns cache chewing up 15% of all cpu when the boxes were 
> fully loaded but with only 600 connections setup.
> 
>>> The dns caching box assigned to handle that load has two paltry Pentium
>>> III 800Mhz cpus and a mere 1 GB of RAM. dnscache handles them without a
>> Thats rather ancient, I cant recall any figures from that far back, too 
>> many years ago, so I wont challenge you on those specs.
>>
>>
> 
> You'd have to work in an environment where you don't get new hardware 
> and have to squeeze every last drop of juice from your available 
> hardware to have to do what I did. Them dnscache boxes were constantly 
> pegging one of the cpus to do their job. Load that makes dnscache peg a 
> box will most probably knock BIND senseless on that box.
> 

Please don't feed the trolls.  They become dependant on decent,
upstanding people for their survival and when left to their own will
either starve to death or become an increasing nuisance to rest of us
looking for more.