In article <mailman.469.1458936922.73610.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, Dave Warren <da...@hireahit.com> wrote:
> On 2016-03-25 07:21, Barry Margolin wrote: > > In article <mailman.456.1458889802.73610.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, > > Dave Warren <da...@hireahit.com> wrote: > > > >> I'm more interested in the impact from the perspective of an > >> authoritative server operator and in some respects sites that use short > >> TTLs will increase the odds of my longer-TTL's records staying in the > >> cache longer before it gets hit by a cache-size limit, but none of my > >> zones are really large enough to do A/B testing. > > IMHO, memory is so cheap these days that any server that has to eject > > cache entries because of memory limits means the server operator isn't > > really trying to do their job well. > > If you're running a dedicated public/ISP/massive-corporation resolver, > sure, this is true. But if your resolver is some random DNS server on a > small corporate Active Directory and one of dozens of services on a > $1000 server with 1-50 users, who cares if your DNS cache only carries 5 > minutes, 30 minutes, or 6 hours of cache? > > In fact, if your resolver just forwards queries to your ISP, and your > ISP has dedicated caches, there would be very little measurable > difference at all. I'm not a fan of forwarding, but many admins set it > up because it's there without considering whether it's needed or not. If you're running a resolver for a small organization, the cache isn't going to get huge in the first place. How many different names will 50 users access in a day? -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
