Return-Path: owner-new-httpd Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id KAA11660; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:34:45 -0800 Received: from get.wired.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA11651; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:34:43 -0800 Received: by get.wired.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) id KAA20111; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:33:58 -0800 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 10:33:57 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com cc: David Robinson Subject: Re: Nameserver cache In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-new-httpd@hyperreal.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Simon Spero wrote: > This may or may not be atypical; 100 entries took me to about 70% on a > typical sunsite trace , which suprised me. 210 entries got me to the 90% > mark. If you're using pipes, though, you might as well cheat and use a > local caching named; UDP is quite fast to localhost, and if you move to > persistent processes, you can just set up a TCP connection and keep it > buzzing. So... I'd like to see some performance tests between 1) rst's nameserver cache 2) David's pipes-based but more portable cache 3) running a local named. If there's not an appreciable difference between 2 and 3 then I'd say let's leave it out - if there is a huge difference between 1 and 3 on platforms with mmap then let's leave it in as a #DEFINE. We still need a good solid test suite - I just discovered one of the patches I recommended yesterday is dumping core on /cgi-bin/printenv.. ugh... Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@hotwired.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.hotwired.com/Staff/brian/