[106468] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Great Suggestion for the DNS problem...?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Tue Jul 29 12:22:02 2008
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:21:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20080729102302.3d0956f4@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In this situation, UDP uses one query packet and one reply. TCP uses 3
> to set up the connection, a query, a reply, and three to tear down the
> connection. *Plus* the name server will have to keep state for
> every client, plus TIMEWAIT state, etc. (Exercise left to TCP geek
> readers: how few packets can you do this in? For example -- send the
> query with the SYN+ACK, send client FIN with the query, send server FIN
> with the answer? Bonus points for not leaving the server's side in
> TIMEWAIT. Exercise for implementers: how sane can your stack be if
> you're going to support that?)
The bittorrent tracker guys seem to run into problems at around 30kk
tracker requests per second (TCP), and they say it's mostly setup/teardown
(sy usage in vmstat), the tracker hash lookup doesn't take that much.
They're trying to move to UDP, currently their workload is approx 5% UDP.
I guess TCP DNS workload would be similar in characteristics.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
