Francis Dupont wrote:
>> >> Does "several thousands of queries per second during normal
>> >> operations" with TCP matter?
>> >
>> > => yes because it is at the limit current OSs can do on cheap stock
>> > hardware...
>>
>> Are you saying real root servers are using cheap stock hardware?
>
> => current real root servers no but if
Read the draft, before repeatedly demonstrating your
stupidity in public.
It is about the current configuration. Moreover,
> we'd like to run 100 or 100
> times more we have first to lower requirements on the hardware.
then, even though you haven't read the draft, it is obvious that
100 times more root servers means 100 times less load.
> And the argument applies to not root servers too.
The argument in the draft is on the root servers.
>> Aren't you arguing that the server should close connections
>> only after a timeout because the server can not accept so
>> many new connections?
>
> => no, I am arguing the requirement on TCP DNS to close at the server
> side only after a timeout
It is because someone (Paul Vixie, perhaps) thought that
several thousands new connection per second was harmful.
Thus, today, the timeout can be 5, 1 or 0 seconds, if
longer timeout is a problem (it is not, see below).
> makes most kernel improvements for HTTP servers
> useless for TCP DNS.
Don't you know that, with HTTP/1.1, TCP connection is kept
open even after a single query?
I wonder how you can say "I wrote OS".
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
