The next BIND Survey - which will start in a few months will specifically test for dns pointing to alternate roots - and the question should be settled then. Your analysis is a bit faulty here. You've made an analysis more appropriately applied to a standalone nameserver and not a root server. A root server only acts as a pointer - once it get's the data it needs - the resolver holds the information for a specific period of time, therefore the resolver will no longer query the root server for answers. So the analysis here is a bit off and misinformed. Regards Joe Baptista On Sun, 2 Apr 100, John Charles Broomfield wrote: > > Hi Roeland, > You didn't understand what I was getting at apparently. I agree > completely with you that the CPU-power you need currently is very low. What > I was saying is that ORSC as it stands today is not handling more than a > completely marginal proportion of internet traffic (probably less than > 0.01% of legacy IANA traffic), so for all practical purposes it just doesn;t > exist. The problem of having enough CPU or not just doesn't come into it. > > So this lovely newletter stating over half a million hits in one month is > really an attempt of glorifying something that doesn't need to be glorified. > Your servers may be able to handle all the load you want. I'm not arguing > about that. What I *am* arguing is that you don't have any load at all > because (in all practical senses) nobody is using you. From the perspective > of the size of the internet, a mere 500K uses in one month works out to one > use every 5 seconds, which means that nobody uses you or has heard about > you. For all I care, you may have a Beowolf linux cluster of 5000 alpha-500 > boxes and have ten units like that spread over the world making you the most > impressive computing facility alive, and would never have a CPU problem in > this matter. Unfortunately it would all be a wasted effort (for the moment). > Please do inform us when you get something like a million hits per DAY. (How > many users on the 'net today? aprox 200 million some say? Even if you get > just ONE hit per month per person, that would be 200 million hits... -yes > oversimplification because of cache etc, but you get the idea-) > The LARGEST rogue^H^H^H^H^Halternative root system out there NEEDS less than > 64Kb of bandwidth to run and that's an overkill. > Your 500K hits in one month work out to one hit every 5 secs aprox. Lets say > that 200 bytes are exchanged in each hit (I'm being extremely exagerated > there), that means you are consuming an average of 40bytes per second, in > other words (because of CRC etc) lets say around 400 bits/second. So, in > fact, you don't even need a 64Kb link. You just need a 0.4Kb link. You could > run your current server over a 1200baud modem (over a 300baud you would > probably saturate, but as I've estimated on the higher side, it *might* just > work). So, run it now on a 300 baud modem, check the bandwidth saturation > and if it proves to be too bad, you can migrate to a 1200 baud modem to have > mode than enough bandwidth spare. Hmmm then again that would make your > latency pretty bad, so maybe (if you have the cash to spare) a 9600baud > modem would really eliminate all your latency/bandwidth problems, and at > your current rate of growth shoul allow you another couple of years. Yes, > very relevant I don't think. You're a technical minded guy. Care to indicate > where I've made a mistake? > As far as an excel sheet to backup the above analysis, sorry I don't use > excel to do 2+2 type equations. > So, as you see, there is no FUD, apart from that put out by ORSC trying to > disguise a 300baud-modem system as something that is currently handling > traffic in a major way. I am *NOT* disputing the fact that you MIGHT be able > to handle it. What I'm saying is that the effort as-is today is completely > irrelevant (from the figures you give. > > Yours, John Broomfield. > > P.S. > /whine on > I *wish* I had 2 E1's. I only have one (E1=2Mb bandwidth). It's a standard > leased circuit, not SDSL. And it costs aprox 240Kff per month (around US$35K). > And I can't colocate out of here, because I need to get the bandwidth from > the 'net to my customers (who ARE local). If you're wondering why it's so > expensive, it's because we're located in Guadeloupe -Caribbean-. Bandwidth > to under-developed areas and third world countries is EXTREMELY expensive > because of monopolistic structuring of the local telcos (you don't even have > to go that far, just ask how much a 2Mb link costs between London and Paris, > and you will see the advantages of breaking up the national telco as they > did in US). > > > > Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM > > > > > > Hi all, > > > Apart from the fact that it's just a shameless plug, > > > I'd like to put it into perspective. > > > > > > (...) > > > > 1. Visibility of ORSC Top-Level domains jumps 54% in March > > > (...) > > > > VISIBILITY OF ORSC TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS JUMPS 54% IN MARCH > > > > The results are in and they show that the number of hits on ADNS's > > > > root server / resolver ASLAN.OPEN-RSC.ORG jumped in March > > > to 530,634 hits > > > > compared to 353,000 in February. This is an increase of over 54%. > > > > > > /flame on heat-level=nova > > > > Really? This sounds like FUD to me ... > > > > > This means that on average, it was getting around 1 hit every > > > 5 seconds. > > > Note that if I look at the hits that *my* main resolver gets (the main > > > resolver for an ISP with around 3500 dialup customers, and a > > > bunch of hosted > > > sites, but with a total outbound connectivity of 2Mb which is > > > not full -ie a VERY small ISP by todays standards-) it's aproximately 5 > > > times that (one hit per second aprox). > > > > Okay, you have a pair of E1's ... I believe that matches the smallest system > > feeding alternate roots, but they're a pair of SDSL lines (1.1 Mbps each). > > > > > My system services 3500+ customers. ORSC roots are trying to > > > indicate that > > > they are a RELEVANT alternative to the legacy IANA roots > > > (which serve for > > > all *practical* purposes ALL of the internet). > > > If someone can post the hits per second of the legacy IANA > > > roots, it would > > > put it even further in perspective, but I suspect that the > > > ORSC is something > > > around 0.01% of hits at the VERY most. I don't call that > > > relevant. In fact I > > > call it totally IRRELEVANT. > > > > As pointed out before, the DNS is a very light load. Even a K6-200 can > > handle multiple hits per second and a dual PIII-800 could probably handle > > the entire Internet, with all zones local. But, if one really feels like > > spending money, a VALinux Cluster City would handle all possible loads, with > > one gig-ether NIC > > disconnected.<http://www.valinux.com/systems/clustercity.html> > > > > > /flame off > > > > > > A burning commentary, but true nevertheless. > > > > I'd like to see a capacity analysis supporting your statement. An Excel > > spreadsheet would be fine. I you have a problem with MS products, xspread is > > also useable. Even my esteemed opponent, Kent Crispin, agrees that you don't > > need a big box for DNS. What you need is decent pipes and, with DSL and > > whatnot, those are getting cheaper every day. (Covad SDSL [1.1 Mbps] is > > $348US per month, retail. [Sorry John, I know what those E1's are costing > > you]). > > > > I suspect that in the process of building such an analysis (which you > > clearly haven't done) you will come to the realization that making such > > claims, in an audience containing folks who do that sort of thing, as part > > of their livelyhood, is more than slightly risk-prone. The numbers had > > better be there, they had better be right, and you MUST show your work. > > Anything less is FUD. > > > > BTW, didn't we go throught this effort on the IFWP list, or was it > > DOMAIN-POLICY. > > > > -- > > This message was passed to you via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. > > Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to unsubscribe > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html > > > > -- > This message was passed to you via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. > Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to unsubscribe > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html >