Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    NS redundancy & performance

    Hi,

    I would like to know from the DNS guru's if there is any performance hit in having multiple nameserver servers in geographical locations on seperate TLD's.

    Example : thisdomain.com

    IN NS ns1.thisns.com.
    IN NS ns2.thisns.org.
    IN NS ns3.thisns.net.
    IN NS ns4.thisns.biz.

    Each NS TLD is with a seperate registrar and on different name servers. their ns* A records point to name servers in different geographical locations.

    Now I know this is the height of NS redundancy, but what I want to know is if there is any real performance impact by doing this?


    Regards,
    Dave

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by Murmaider View Post
    Now I know this is the height of NS redundancy, but what I want to know is if there is any real performance impact by doing this?
    Well in the end... what TLD of the domain is going to be using these name servers?
    Example.
    If you have a COM/NET domain your "best" performance will be all COM/NET name servers. It does not matter at all if you have INFO name servers for your COM/NET domain since if the COM/NET TLDs are down then you are fubar'd anyway....

    Overall, Verisign's COM/NET name servers will always be the fastest and most reliable.

    So why do companies have name servers in different TLDs (like you showed)?
    They do this because they just want to setup certain name servers and be done (not a different group per TLD). One set of name servers they can use for all domains in any TLD.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    223
    This is exactly how Amazon's new R53 service is setup. I've been using it for my personal domain since day one; haven't noticed any performance hit at all.

    Regardless, BuffaloBill pretty much nails it. As you can see, my personal domain answers calls from a .us parent first, before Amazon gets the request: http://intodns.com/cph.us

    Point is, like Buffalo said, if that .us TLD system goes down, I'm fubar anyways. The one thing I like about having different NS' like you/Amazon have is redundancy; and at the end of the day, that's pretty damn important.

    edit: link to Amazon's R53 system.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Interknox View Post
    This is exactly how Amazon's new R53 service is setup. I've been using it for my personal domain since day one; haven't noticed any performance hit at all.
    And how could you notice a performance hit? DNS system was designed from the ground up to be resilient, robust, transparent, fast, to provide high availability. You will notice an issue with DNS only if all your name servers are down or eventual intermediate dns cache servers are down.
    You will only find out how good a provider is when the going gets tough

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by dotHostel View Post
    And how could you notice a performance hit? DNS system was designed from the ground up to be resilient, robust, transparent, fast, to provide high availability. You will notice an issue with DNS only if all your name servers are down or eventual intermediate dns cache servers are down.
    Just because DNS was designed to be all of these great things, doesn't mean there aren't performance issues here/there. Point your DNS to one of these fly-by-night hosts with oversold servers, then point your DNS to someone like Amazon, DNSMadeEasy, even GoDaddy - and you'll notice performance differences.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,574
    Performance differences like what?
    You will only find out how good a provider is when the going gets tough

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by dotHostel View Post
    Performance differences like what?
    Caching doesn't work properly, recursion is slow due to poor resources on the DNS server, records not syncing properly b/t servers, etc.

    I'm not saying there's night/day performance issues - 99% of people out there won't notice anything. Heck, if something happens anyways, the client machine (or whatever) will go through the iteration process anyways; it'll just be slower. Point being there are performance issues but most people will never notice them.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by dotHostel View Post
    Performance differences like what?
    Difference between 80ms response time for a DNS query and 30ms response time. Not noticeable for most users.
    Some high end users really care about this though. Faster queries, faster hosting, fast site resolution.... is better usually for SEO.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Interknox View Post
    Point your DNS to one of these fly-by-night hosts with oversold servers, then point your DNS to someone like Amazon, DNSMadeEasy, even GoDaddy - and you'll notice performance differences.
    Why someone would point to DNSMadeEasy, GoDaddy, Enom? Registrars and DNS companies usually provide primary and secondary authoritative name servers, not recursive cache servers for use by you or your clients. There is no sense to point to them because their name servers will fail to answer queries about domains not in their DNS. Simple like that.



    Quote Originally Posted by BuffaloBill View Post
    Difference between 80ms response time for a DNS query and 30ms response time. Not noticeable for most users.
    I suppose you can notice this difference. 1/10 of second. How much it accounts loading a page?

    The fact is the first query may involve several name servers but the following requests most times are resolved locally at your computer/LAN or by your ISP's cache name servers which are supposed to have "network proximity" to your computer. In other words, there is no impact of DNS name resolution after loading the first object of the first page visited.


    Quote Originally Posted by BuffaloBill View Post
    Some high end users really care about this though. Faster queries, faster hosting, fast site resolution.... is better usually for SEO.
    There is no way someone can provide best latency than local cache name servers. Akamai tries to mimic this in some extent (for limited markets) putting authoritative name servers "near" (usually in the same network) visitor's cache name servers. Note these servers answer DNS queries for Akamai's domains not the user's domain. Domain resolution time is highly improbable to have any SEO significance.
    Last edited by dotHostel; 03-03-2011 at 06:33 AM.
    You will only find out how good a provider is when the going gets tough

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by dotHostel View Post
    Why someone would point to DNSMadeEasy, GoDaddy, Enom? Registrars and DNS companies usually provide primary and secondary authoritative name servers, not recursive cache servers for use by you or your clients. There is no sense to point to them because their name servers will fail to answer queries about domains not in their DNS. Simple like that.
    I think we're talking about two different things here? I'm not talking about pointing my device (whatever that might be) to GoNasty or DME. I'm talking about having your domain's NS' pointed there, and having your zone file hosted with one of those companies. In that case, yes, your domain would be served from their DNS.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2006, 02:27 PM
  2. Load Balancing, Redundancy & Failover
    By richardparry in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-30-2003, 09:24 AM
  3. Redundancy & backbone
    By ginagamo in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-19-2002, 10:38 PM
  4. Bandwidth Redundancy & Burst.net Nocster plans
    By chrisb in forum Running a Web Hosting Business
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-03-2002, 09:43 AM
  5. speed & performance
    By chocolate in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-12-2001, 03:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •