Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 18:21:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Sander <jim@federation.addy.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP vs CNAME Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10006031757050.4168-100000@federation.addy.com> In-Reply-To: <3938892F.FC65E69A@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You are needlessly doubling the traffic to your nameservers That would be a worst case scenario (assuming no caching, etc) and even so DNS traffic is pretty minimal. The querries are tiny, and the CPU load to handle them is practically nil. DNS load is not any reason to argue one way or another. (we run DNS for 1000+ domains, each with their own IP, and the P166s we use for the servers barely budge from 100% idle) > Better to keep the IP's for something more useful down the road. If you have already been allocated your blocks by ARIN this may be an issue, but on the other hand you may (probably do) get your network blocks assigned by your upstream provider, in which case by the time you need more you'll be a much bigger customer and can demand more from them... "Down the road" may be far enough away to get into IPV6, etc- and although ignoring the future is silly, so is over-planning. You have plenty of IPs to use, so use them. If you have a crunch later, there are options and they will only become *more* diverse with time. It may require more work later, but you'll have more experience too. Changing your mind later is *not* impossible, just inconvenient. > There is no connection between name based vhosts and CNAME's. Um, yeah- there really is. If all your customers' www sites are pointed at the same IP address, the web server needs some way to decide which document root to use. Under http 1.0 this was impossible, but modern servers and browsers let you define name (not IP) based virtual hosts. If that doesn't count as a connection, well then you're right. :) > By not using CNAME's you can have much more flexibility for your > customers down the road because you can offer them custom DNS entries > (like MX records, etc.) that you won't be able to do if you use CNAME's > for their hosts. Actually, you can use a CNAME for www.theirdom and still define a zone file for them where you set up ftp.theirdom and mail.theirdom - so this argument simply doesn't hold water. > All that said, there are no performance differences between name and IP > based vhosts. Why would there be? Actually there probably *are* slight differences- but they're probably miniscule enough to be undetectable to mere mortals. Definitely they are dwarfed by the actual serving out of content. -=Jim=- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.10006031757050.4168-100000>