> cache hit rate is about 80%-90% for those caching you think can be > removed. Note that this cache hit rate is heavilly skewed because of > the facebook "one time" uncachable hostnames they were using at the > time. If you also include the fact that these caches were feeding > other caches, you will see the enormous amount of queries you are > suggesting to unleash on authoritative nameservers on the internet.
Right... Our cache hit rate is somewhere in the two-thirds area. At least the last time I looked. (We have some notions from a couple years ago in http://www.icir.org/mallman/pubs/CAR13/ .) But, one important bit here is that while this does increase the load, the load is distributed. So, it isn't like we're landing all the load one given point in the network. And, it is distributed proportionally to the popularity of the underlying services (which intuitively seems about right to me). > > - And, I'd spin this around on you ... You clearly care about your 3 > > poor nameservers. That is natural and rational. But, why do you > > think it is someone else's job to run a cache to shield you from > > load? > > If you really believe the mode of the internet should be that the > weakest device should be able to deal with the largest volume load the > world can throw at it, there is not much point discussing this > further. I'm just happy that people like Van Jacobson designed the > internet. > > > Why should we at ICSI run a shared resolver for your benefit? > > Because thousands of ISP run caches for your servers' benefit. > Using your reasoning, we should drop all the exponential backoff > in our TCP/IP protocols. You'll just have to deal with the load, > and if you get blasted off the net it's clear your fault for being > underpowered. I think this is a really bad analogy. I do happen to know something about congestion control. Maybe even two things! Congestion control is a shared set of algorithms / strategies for dealing with the case when some shared piece of infrastructure is over-committed. For instance, a link in the middle of the net. It isn't any one person's/host's fault that it is over-capacity. So, we agree on a set of techniques that we can all use to reasonably backoff and share the link so nobody starves. We do not point at the owner of the link and say "hey, we're trying to use more capacity than you have so buy some more capacity!". I.e., we don't impose on someone else to add resources on our behalf. Rather, we decide to all play nice and so we all get something done (even if slower than we'd really like). Congestion control is about coping with a less-than-ideal shared reality. But, this is not at all like your nameserver. Your nameserver is not shared infrastructure that zillions of disparate people all happen to (over) use. It is infrastructure that works on your behalf to serve names that you want served. If it can't handle the load then there is a clear culprit: you. I.e., your popularity has outgrown your resources. Why should that be my problem? We don't have google telling us to all fire up an institutional HTTP cache on our networks because it has run out of capacity and its our problem to fix. Finally, it isn't that I believe the "weakest device should be able to deal with the largest volume load the world can throw at it". Rather, I believe if someone is providing a service, then they should be responsible for provisioning for the load that service incurs (or dealing with the suboptimal performance). I wouldn't have thought that a controversial notion. allman
pgpvoASMDGV4J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
