Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:01:14 +0100 From: Bjarne Wichmann Petersen <freebsd.nospam@mekanix.dk> To: dan@slightlystrange.org, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Resolving or blocking eg. doubleclick.net? Message-ID: <200302121301.14497.freebsd.nospam@mekanix.dk> In-Reply-To: <20030212102223.GA60013@catflap.home.slightlystrange.org> References: <200302121029.14713.freebsd.nospam@mekanix.dk> <200302121109.33305.kde.nospam@mekanix.dk> <20030212102223.GA60013@catflap.home.slightlystrange.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 12 February 2003 11:22, Daniel Bye wrote: > I have just tried to resolve doubleclick.net, and the first hit took > around three seconds. Thereafter, with it cachedi locally, it came back > in at most 0.02 seconds. I reckon your best bet is to persevere - does > the cache demonstrate any advantage at all? No advantage at all. What do you mean by "persevere"? > I put my upstream (ISP's) caches in the forwarders section in named.conf. > While not strictly necessary, as already pointed out, it can give you the > advantage of tapping into a huge set of cached data on your ISP's servers. > Suck it and see - I cannot believe that you are the only person connecting > through your ISP who gets pelted with these bloody ads from doubleclick. Have added them, without seeing any difference in performance. But it does make my tcpdump more readable. > Check for messages in /var/log/messages, or whatever file your named > logs to. /var/log/messages reports nothing unusual. Haven't told named to log somewhere else. Bjarne -- Homepage: http://www.mekanix.dk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200302121301.14497.freebsd.nospam>