Recommended setup with large cache memory

[Brad Knowles]

At 11:37 AM +0200 2005-09-09, Attila Nagy wrote:

>  I have made some benchmarks with and without threading and even bind
>  9.3.1 is faster without it. Did you try to compile without threading?

	Have you tested it on an SMP machine?  Threading is really only 
useful if done with multiple CPUs for the program to make use of.

>  BTW, did anybody thought about having a different caching (and even
>  authoritative) backend, for example a memcached, spreading many machines?

	There is the DLZ-BIND stuff, but that's for authoritative 
services and not caching.

>  You have 8 caches, I have 4. Each of them builds its own cache and the
>  hit ratio goes down as you install more machines. A shared cache could
>  be much more effective.

	You're talking about striping everything across all the back-end 
machines, and all clients would be hurt equally if one of those 
back-end machines were to die.

	The current BIND solution is more like mirroring, which is much 
more resilient to failure of a single machine, especially if used in 
combination with a high-available load-balancing switch to detect and 
route around failures of back-end machines.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.