-ray wrote:
> What if your DNS servers are in the same rack, on the same switch as
> mail servers. Network latency is <200 usecs. In that case is there
> much advantage to a caching server on the same box as mail?
Probably not. In that case, a caching server on the mail box would probably
hurt
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006, David F. Skoll wrote:
A caching DNS server running on the same box can help?
Maybe. A caching server still has to do the initial lookups, and
if the cache miss rate is high enough, you'll still have problems.
But in general, a caching server is a good idea.
What if your
Gary Funck wrote:
> A caching DNS server running on the same box can help?
Maybe. A caching server still has to do the initial lookups, and
if the cache miss rate is high enough, you'll still have problems.
But in general, a caching server is a good idea.
Regards,
David.
__
> From: David F. Skoll
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:35 PM
>
> Ah. That screams network problems. DNS latencies can kill you,
> especially if you're using SURBL lookups inside SpamAssassin.
> High DNS latency causes slave processes to build up.
A caching DNS server running on the same bo
Stephen Ford wrote:
> Ok, this is odd. At 7:30PM all of a sudden, the
> server started purring along.
Ah. That screams network problems. DNS latencies can kill you,
especially if you're using SURBL lookups inside SpamAssassin.
High DNS latency causes slave processes to build up.
Regards,
Dav
5 matches
Mail list logo
