Hi, in my experience with building yet another DNS resolver from scratch was that the gain from the shared networked cache was heavily paid in the latency.
I would encourage you to actually do a performance testing with cold and hot cache and my educated guess is that shared redis cache will help with bootstrapping, but once you reach a state where most of the answers are already in the cache there’s no or negative benefit from it. I believe that in most scenarios the increased complexity in not worth the benefit gained. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý — ISC > On 19 Apr 2020, at 12:27, Talkabout <talk.ab...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I am considering to switch from Unbound to Bind9 to use as DNS Server, but I > have a requirement that seems to not being possible with Bind9. > > Currently I am using 2 Unbound DNS Servers configured to use Redis (KeyDB as > a drop-in replacement in my case) to make sure that both Servers are sharing > the same Cache. That way, when server1 resolves an address and puts it into > the backend database, server2 does not Need to execute Resolution for this > address any more but gets it fast from the shared Cache. > > I have not found any way in the Bind9 documentation to achieve a similar > Thing. So my Questions are: > > Is there a way to configure a shared Cache that is used by multiple Servers? > Is there a way to configure custom backends for Bind9? > Are there any plans to support similar Scenarios? Maybe via a Synchronisation > mechanism? > > Thanks! > > Bye > > Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10 > > _______________________________________________ > Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe > from this list > > bind-users mailing list > bind-users@lists.isc.org > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
_______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
