Hello all,

Just want some opinions and possibly stories.

I am thinking about getting a RAQ 3 or 2 just to provide DNS for my other RAQs. That means all the dns would be in one place. How many sites can it hold as a dns server, i under stand that about a 2 million DNS requests is about 230 -300 MB transfer, thats no problem with 61 - 80 GIGS but will the RAQ be able to keep alive with say 1000 domains (just DNS) on it.

Take a look at this from the maradns web site (
http://www.maradns.org/)


The benchmark performed here was done with the "benchmark" tool supplied with MaraDNS. I sent a series of 50,000 queries over the loopback interface to DjbDNS 1.04, BIND 4.9.7, BIND 8.3.2, BIND 9.1.1rc6, and MaraDNS 0.5.09. Here is how long the queries took to process on a Dell poweredge computer with a single 800MHZ Pentium III CPU, running Linux 2.2.19:

maradns-0.5.09: 3.46
bind-8.2.3: 6.34
bind-9.1.1rc6: 6.40
bind-4.9.7: 6.48
djbdns-1.04: 9.95

I assume this is in seconds for all 50,000 request.




Also this, from the djbdns web site (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/)

How fast is tinydns? Can it handle a huge number of incoming queries?
Answer: One site reported receiving 500 queries per second per server at peak times for data from a 350-megabyte data.cdb. The tinydns process handled about 7000 queries per second of CPU time. The CPU was a Pentium III-550.

This example, and lab tests, suggest that tinydns can easily handle the .com server load. However, I don't have enough data on the distribution of .com queries to carry out a realistic experiment.


These are alternatives to BIND. If you are going to use BIND, I highly recommend the following:

Run only BIND and other critical services on your box (no web server, email, etc).

Use at least 256MB of RAM.

Compile BIND from source -- tweaked as necessary for performance.

Tweak the disk IO and buffer caches to match the needs of the DNS.


We used to host 1600 DNS entries on a PII 350 (256 MB RAM) Redhat box with no problems. These however were relatively low-traffic web sites. Tweaking the server and compiling BIND for optimal performance will really help. I have not tried the alternative DNS servers noted above.

Originally posted by HostRat
I am thinking about getting a RAQ 3 or 2 just to provide DNS for my other RAQs.

Seems like it would make more sense to just get a plain linux box since you won't need the Cobalt CPanel. It would be alot cheaper to do it that way.

Originally posted by HostRat
That means all the dns would be in one place. This is not success oriented.

Please consider adding a second, physically separate, DNS server. Or perhaps rent a second one.

Originally posted by Mike the newbie
This is not success oriented.

Please consider adding a second, physically separate, DNS server. Or perhaps rent a second one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that the DNS for ALL his servers would be in one place, rather then running DNS on each machines. A second server located in a different data center is ideal, but isn't possible for everyone.

Originally posted by brandonk


Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's saying that the DNS for ALL his servers would be in one place, rather then running DNS on each machines. A second server located in a different data center is ideal, but isn't possible for everyone.

I think you are correct with your inference that all his DNS servers would be in one place. That is why I raised my concern.

It should be possible for anyone who wants to offer a reliable, robust service to offer a solid DNS infrastructure. One of the first things I look at when I sign up for a web-hosting provider is the DNS server configuration. I like to see at least one on a different, off-site (i.e., out of the main NOC) subnet. A hosting provider that pays attention to that level of detail will not settle for a lackadaisical approach in other areas I cannot see.

There are third-party services that will offer geographically distant DNS back-up servers for [what I think is] a reasonable fee. Check out http://www.zoneedit.com and let me know if you think I'm off-base.

Originally posted by Mike the newbie


I think you are correct with your inference that all his DNS servers would be in one place. That is why I raised my concern.


Any my point was that you were taking this thread off topic. I agree with with 500%, but that was not his concern when posting. :)

Originally posted by brandonk
Any my point was that you were taking this thread off topic....


Oops. :D