Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 13:26:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Francisco Reyes <lists@natserv.com> To: "B. Bonev" <b_bonev@mail.orbitel.bg> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fw: DNS caching: Squid, BIND or anything else? Message-ID: <20050806132140.Y38067@zoraida.natserv.net> In-Reply-To: <000a01c599c9$76f1c700$4700000a@server> References: <000a01c599c9$76f1c700$4700000a@server>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, B. Bonev wrote: > I think that Squid have a internal DNS server. Now, as understand I must > have configure Squid for HTTP req, and BIND or another DNS cache server > for DNS req... As others have mentioned perhaps you are missunderstanding what those programs do. It will help if you tell us what you are trying to do. A mini review of the tools in question DNS server Answers DNS requests Squid and other proxies Caches data Let's say you have 3 users in a network and they all use common sites such as bsdnes.com or slashdot. A caching DNS server will cache the IP for the site. Nothing else. Bandwith/time saved.. minimal. A caching proxy like Squid will cache content (The actual pages) so there will be time/bandwith savings because only one user will have to actually wait to go to the actual site while the rest will get the data from the proxy cache. The more users using the same sites the better performance gains you will see from a proxy. For a single user there may be savings, but I think not as much. There are benchmarks out there that you could search, but the general rule is that the benefits of the cache are greater as the number of people using the same site increase. Hope that helps clarify a bit.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050806132140.Y38067>