From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 30 00:02:18 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F82106566C for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:02:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au) Received: from mail.unitedinsong.com.au (mail.unitedinsong.com.au [150.101.178.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880358FC14 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:02:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au (laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au [192.168.0.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.unitedinsong.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D110E5C24 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:14:44 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4EFCFEC4.6070507@herveybayaustralia.com.au> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:59:00 +1000 From: Da Rock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111109 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20111228075422.GA18064@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <4EFAE80D.9040900@my.gd> <20111228130734.GA23763@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <4EFB1B4F.2090504@my.gd> <20111228175512.GB27286@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> <20111229022538.GA38514@admin.sibptus.tomsk.ru> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: mutual forwarders in ISC BIND X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 00:02:18 -0000 On 12/29/11 12:45, Kevin Wilcox wrote: > On Dec 28, 2011 9:26 PM, "Victor Sudakov" wrote: > >> And the reason for the whole thread. One of the customers told me that >> 8.8.8.8 is faster than our own DNS servers which are located on the >> same 100 MBit/s LAN with them. I was shocked but it seems true, at >> least for the answers which are not yet cached. > That actually makes perfect sense. That's one of the Google DNS IP > addresses and they see a LOT of traffic, they're probably going to have the > majority of the domains your clients want to look up (assuming your clients > are like mine and most of their lookups are general web traffic) already in > cache - your servers will need to go through the whole lookup process. > > Still, after a day or two of use, I would think your servers would have the > bulk of what they needed in their caches. You may want to enable logging to > see which domains are being looked up (if it won't break any applicable > laws or policies) and do some spot-checks to see why they may not be in > your cache. > A rather amusing observation would be that they're not in the cache because the clients are using 8.8.8.8 ...