Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:15:27 -0700 From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: Jim Sander <jim@federation.addy.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP vs CNAME Message-ID: <3939C9CF.66AC2B7F@gorean.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10006031757050.4168-100000@federation.addy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jim Sander wrote: > > > You are needlessly doubling the traffic to your nameservers > > That would be a worst case scenario (assuming no caching, etc) I already explained, caching is not relevant here. I'm talking about the traffic for the queries you _do_ get. > and even so DNS traffic is pretty minimal. Ok, so it's not a factor for you. Not a problem, but a lot of people haven't analyzed the problem that far. Another way to explain my objection is that the CNAME is not _necessary_, and a good system administration rule is not to include things that aren't necessary to make your installation work. "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send," is still the way it's supposed to be. > 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) So what will it cost you when you're running 100,000 domains? "I can afford it now" is not a well thought out argument. :) > > There is no connection between name based vhosts and CNAME's. > > Um, yeah- there really is. You obviously missed the multiple places where I stated that the only requirement for name based vhosts to work is that the name resolve to the IP address of your web server. I've set up thousands of name based virtual hosts, I assure you, CNAME's are not required. > 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. That would be the HTTP 1.1 HOSTS: header. This is sent by the browser, there is no DNS interaction involved at all (once the browser knows what IP to send the request to). > > 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. So you can add a kludge to make your first kludge work? Woo woo! At this point there really isn't any need to continue, since I've already said what I intended to say. If you don't see the wisdom in what I'm talking about, that's ok. Doug 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?3939C9CF.66AC2B7F>