* Oliver Peter <[email protected]> [2011-01-24 15:13]: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 01:33:53PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Oliver Peter <[email protected]> [2011-01-24 11:56]: > > > The tcp option in resolv.conf might be reasonable for a single workstation > > > but due to the protocol overhead not appropriate for larger networks / > > > many > > > clients. > > > > people keep claiming this bullshit. remains bullshit. > > The more I think about it... The only tcp connection you establish is from > the host in question (i.e. workstation) to the resolver. > The resolver then decides how to query the authoritative nameserver (udp/tcp), > right? Aye?
almost. it'll be more than one. that could be circumvented by a small local daemon, but that has other downsides. after all, the cost of establishing a tcp session isn't all that high, especially to the caching resolver which should be near aka low ttl. i even doubt it'd make much of a difference for a caching resolver. tcp sessions to the root servers and the common tld servers should stay established. dito for very commonly used other nameservers. the rest, yes, there is a little higher overhead. does it matter? i doubt it. but i have no numbers either. and thus, when i talk about the matter, i make clear this is an educated guess, no more, no less. -- Henning Brauer, [email protected], [email protected] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
