From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SWHCi-00045B-DR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 01:14:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4E85E0B16; Mon, 21 May 2012 01:13:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692FDE0AFD for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 01:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so4050512bkc.40 for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 18:11:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=k1U+9oOBcjRFPBW8IV+BICG2cMSKmSwig+OxlY1flXY=; b=RYq9fgb0QdwO3EtHGgobUmosNDi1z3HKfJxQCf+UwlWArLjucK1GHcpg2hCMI/wm8X Q25Dt+YbwhAzZkubfkdA/4d0SQN0v2cAVBWVSaKx02ZQ9UZ85vPRpQ0ksQTNaFlGTYig T1+AruBMdkdKFF083s4BK4Kgs1RAb+O0PAIaaH/z8PA5D5vAlBf/mba3Hj395wpy3R/R 1eQq7rRxCepe3DsHKksuORc3vlOW0IzZRI9J6/KwePe2TiuLgssWN0WXMWh40rtSvKx0 3sAApsDp/2k4EKihAcZ1J0w3Nqw7D4lBv7jQw0GhwG+x5bUsROHAZyzkBJC/TE3jCOUC faMw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.156.24 with SMTP id u24mr6842648bkw.75.1337562660588; Sun, 20 May 2012 18:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.42.207 with HTTP; Sun, 20 May 2012 18:11:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120519183641.07fc1aae@khamul.example.com> <20120520214754.5bcd2043@khamul.example.com> Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:11:00 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Best caching dns server? From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: e853a8ea-7f18-43f0-842d-0f05aead1d31 X-Archives-Hash: 7e60f9e539f77646b64ecb835f70bc05 On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> Slow connection. See my previous reply to the list. I'm using pdnsd, >>> which can persist records and has every damn feature I wanted. >>> >> >> Fair enough, but consider this: >> >> If your connection is slow, the only thing you speeded up is the DNS >> lookups. Thereafter, everything else is still as slow as it ever was. >> And if you feel the need to speed up DNS lookups then the odds are very >> good that "everything else" is too slow i.e. not exactly usable. >> >> We get this a lot from our customers too, and the advise we give them >> is to look closely at their traffic throttling. In almost every case >> all UDP traffic has had the living crap throttled out of it somewhere >> by folk that don't really think things through, severely affecting >> dns and ntp as well as AV streaming. >> >> Throttled DNS rapidly gets out of hand, IIRC the last time we did some >> measurements it only takes around 5% of dns lookups to go wonky for the >> situation to rapidly spiral out of control - when dns fails the cache >> will try a TCP lookup and that's like wading through molasses. >> >> Our advice to customers is to first unthrottle dns and ntp completely, >> give it the highest possible priority (these are extremely light >> protocols and seldom show up on the radar when you do this), and see >> how that goes. >> >> It just seems to me that you *might* be trying a very unusual solution >> for a problem that is better handled one layer lower down. >> > > Strictly speaking, my connection isn't too slow. I have a transfer > rate of 64 K/s (might sound ridiculous to you, but this costs 18$/mo > here). > OpenDNS lookups from my connection take something like 300 msec+ and > Google DNS lookups around 50 msec. > > I can obviously use Google DNS, but as I said earlier, OpenDNS gives > me phishing protection and other that sort of stuff. > > And hence I must use a local cache. Side note: Honestly, you should be using a local cache, regardless. It'll improve performance for you, *especially* when there's any risk of packet drops between you and the your ISP's core equipment. When I was on a 6Mb/s-down ADSL connection, the improvement I experienced simply from running bind9 as a recursive resolver was *massive*. I still do so, even though I'm now on a pretty reliable cable connection. -- :wq