From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Oct 7 23:39:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA24934 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:39:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from luke.cpl.net (luke.cpl.net [207.67.172.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA24928 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:39:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from shawn@luke.cpl.net) Received: from localhost (shawn@localhost) by luke.cpl.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01585; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 23:38:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Shawn Ramsey To: Jason Wells cc: Kris Kirby , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Good nameserver system? In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971008053520.007b4340@jcwells.deskmail.washington.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > think serving up DNS resolves would be even less taxing. > > I am guessing that a p200 could manage a name service for several ten > thousand DNS requests per day. If a given machine could serve 1 million+ web hits per day, surely a DNS server could serve more than that? DNS would seem to me to be far less taxing than DNS. I seem to remember hearing that Playboy ran one of their web servers on a 5x86 or a very slow Pentium serving 500k hits a day... > Mind you, I am just yakking. Search harder for someone who actually has run > a busy nameserver. I work for a decent sized ISP. We have 2 nameservers one serves all the dialup for a significant number of users. The only thing that gets taxed is RAM. It is running on a P200, but it is also the SMTP/POP3 server, web server, and Radius server. It does other things as well, but that is the majority of its work. I don't even think a big newserver benefits all that much from a super CPU. The biggest bottleneck on a news server is probably hard drive speed. (Or lack therof)