From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 17 13:17:26 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339A916A402 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:17:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 877F913C494 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:17:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie ([134.226.81.10] helo=walton.maths.tcd.ie) by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 17 Jul 2007 14:17:24 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:17:22 +0100 From: David Malone To: Peter Jeremy Message-ID: <20070717131722.GA59009@walton.maths.tcd.ie> References: <200707162319.41724.lofi@freebsd.org> <200707171005.37507.wundram@beenic.net> <469C835B.6090304@vwsoft.com> <200707171106.30795.wundram@beenic.net> <20070717093028.GC1699@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070717093028.GC1699@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie Cc: "Heiko Wundram \(Beenic\)" , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:17:26 -0000 On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 07:30:28PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > Note that it's not just a single AXFR - you need to update your local > slave copy whenever the master copy changes. I'm not sure how often > this is but the current SOA has a 1-day timeout and appears to be about > 24 hours old. I suspect the total data transferred via AXFRs will be > significantly higher than just caching lookup results. I measured the traffic levels a while back: http://www.imconf.net/imc-2004/papers/p15-malone.pdf It's actually pretty close for a moderately busy recursive resolver, and if you allow IXFR (which, I belive, the root servers in question do) then the saving should be bigger. David.