Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:52:21 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov <vas@mpeks.tomsk.su> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND Message-ID: <20111228175221.GA27286@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EFB1B4F.2090504@my.gd> References: <20111228075422.GA18064@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <4EFAE80D.9040900@my.gd> <20111228130734.GA23763@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <4EFB1B4F.2090504@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > > >> > >> If you're trying to build up a cache to improve performance and response > >> time, here's your scenario: > >> > >> DNS C, forward to DNS A,B for all queries > >> DNS D, forward to DNS B,A for all queries > >> > >> Your cache will start building up and only responses that are not cached > >> will be taken from your NS A and B servers. > > > > Sorry, I fail to see how this is any better than two independent DNS > > servers. Perhaps a variant like > > > > DNS C, forward to DNS A > > DNS D, forward to DNS A > > > > would be close to the goal of cache consolidation. > > > > DNS A suffers an outage ; you're fucked, to put it bluntly. Nope. DNS C and D will do the queries on their own. I don't suggest a "forward only" setup. I just want the servers to share the cache. [dd] > > On a side note, have you considered unbound ? > > It may be better suited to your needs and scale. I would read a comparison of BIND and Unbound with great interest. Do you perchance have a link? -- Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111228175221.GA27286>