On 09/12/2008 5:00 AM, Justin Mason wrote: > Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: >> The long standing bottleneck (for net-enabled mass-checks) in my >> otherwise fast mass-check cluster is Bind. It seems that it simply >> cannot handle the load of a dozen or so cores worth of mass-check >> processes. 475 kmsgs/hr non-net versus 70 kmsgs/hr net-enabled is >> unacceptable. >> >> What are people using for a high capacity DNS recursive resolver... >> which hopefully includes cache capabilities? > > well, I don't have a mass-check cluster ;) > > What about multiple binds, one per machine?
Name resolution should scale way better than 10:1 spamd to bind. I've probably borked the config somewhere... I know Bind can perform way better than it is. Thought I'd see if anyone else is using anything else though... I imagine that even a well performing Bind setup can be beaten by something less feature-full. Daryl
