[93663] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Luke C)
Mon Dec 11 10:58:42 2006
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:55:37 +0100
From: "Luke C" <very.luke@gmail.com>
To: "Matt Ghali" <matt@snark.net>
Cc: "Simon Waters" <simonw@zynet.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612081154020.15069@pants.snark.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_30607_10463218.1165852537338
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
of course, my company is working on two main tasks:
the first team is focused on discovering what is the virus, and what is the
best anti-virus.
instead, my team has already scaled our DNS service, by doubling the number
of DNSs.
I'm not completely satisfied by the "scaling solution": I wish to find a
solution that could grant a good quality of the service without placing a
lot of DNS in my web-farms
Thanks
Best Regards
Luke
On 12/8/06, Matt Ghali <matt@snark.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Simon Waters wrote:
>
> > I suspect complex rate limiting may be nearly as expensive as providing
> DNS
> > answers with Bind9.
>
> Indeed. It is generally accepted that it is easier to simply scale
> your service to provide adequate headroom than implement per-client
> traffic policies.
>
> of course, you could also work on cleaning up the mess, but I will
> charitably assume you are working the problem from both directions
> simultaneously.
>
> matto
>
> --matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin><
> Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.
> - Marshall McLuhan
>
------=_Part_30607_10463218.1165852537338
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
of course, my company is working on two main tasks:<br>the first team is focused on discovering what is the virus, and what is the best anti-virus.<br>instead, my team has already scaled our DNS service, by doubling the number of DNSs.
<br><br>I'm not completely satisfied by the "scaling solution": I wish to find a solution that could grant a good quality of the service without placing a lot of DNS in my web-farms<br><br>Thanks<br>Best Regards
<br><br>Luke<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/8/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Matt Ghali</b> <<a href="mailto:matt@snark.net">matt@snark.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Simon Waters wrote:<br><br>> I suspect complex rate limiting may be nearly as expensive as providing DNS<br>> answers with Bind9.<br><br>Indeed. It is generally accepted that it is easier to simply scale
<br>your service to provide adequate headroom than implement per-client<br>traffic policies.<br><br>of course, you could also work on cleaning up the mess, but I will<br>charitably assume you are working the problem from both directions
<br>simultaneously.<br><br>matto<br><br>--matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin><<br> Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity.<br> - Marshall McLuhan
<br></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_30607_10463218.1165852537338--
