Florian Lindner wrote: > I don't want to have it contaminated for eternity and I don't really think it > is. But it wouldn't be a problem to take this hostname out of DNS for like > half a year. What do exactly mean with contanimated?
For an example, the GWebCache galvatron.dyndns.org was not available for several months. When it was respawned, the request rate jumped instantly to almost 100K requests per hour. This was clearly the effect of being a well-known URL. You can also check http://gcachescan.jonatkins.com/ to see the huge amount of still-known (thus contaminated) URLs. Actually, most of these had been filtered from the GWebCache network but due to recent installations of some piss-poor GWebCache implementations, these URLs suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Look also at the graphical stats and notice the steep curve describing the amount of "bad" URLs. If you're curious, mail some of the webmasters and ask them how many requests they still see. Every now and then, clients will contact your cache several thousand times per hour. Funny enough, these are usually clients hardly anyone uses and seemingly nobody maintains. What I mean with contaminated is that an hostname once known as GWebCache will be contacted by clients for a very long time because there's no efficient way other than removing the complete hostname per DNS. So you shouldn't use "www" or any hostname you might want to use for something else later unless you don't mind the wasted bandwidth and noise then. > What traffic do you think I'll still have after half a year without any > GWC servers and answering with ICMP REJECT upon requests? I don't really know but I was talking about the hostname, the IP address should be almost clean after a couple of hours. The then deprecated hostname should point into unassigned waters. This will at least keep the greedy clients busy without wasting any but their own resources. > > If you have a DynDNS.org account I can probably transfer one of > > the hostnames I used previously to your account. This way you > > would more or less immediately see how much bandwidth/memory/CPU > > it takes and older clients would find it as well. > No, it's a static IP with a .de Domain used for the GWC: That might be a misunderstanding. The DynDNS.org is not used because of a dynamic IP address but because they offer a very good DNS service with a TTL as low as 1 (or 2?) minutes. Most cheap DNS providers use a TTL of 12 or 24 hours. So in theory you can run a GWebCache on an account with a dynamic IP address but also switch to another server almost instantly. This really works for the majority of requests but as said Java software is inherently broken with respect to DNS and if such a client resolved the hostname during the same session, it will connect to the old host nonetheless. -- Christian
pgpQX76FChD3g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
