Re: [squid-users] dns.

I personally found orko, that a name server, preferably linux, runs better
that ms 2000 dns in a heavy load dns query enviroment.

I have also found, in my case, squid perform fairly quickly 5-10% "feel"
better with dns install on the smae box.

In you case, I would recogmend one linux dns on any box and see how squid
perform.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Edward Millington. BSc, Network+
Systems Administrator
Cariaccess Communications Ltd.
Palm Plaza
Wildey
St. Michael
Barbados
1-246-430-7435
Fax : 1-246-431-0170
edward@cariaccess.com
www.cariaccess.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Cooper" <joe@swelltech.com>
To: "orko" <orko@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] dns.

> You can increase the name caching that Squid performs, which is more
> efficient than requesting of an external caching server (and certainly
> more efficient than running caching nameservers on every box, which is
> quite a poor use of resources--Squid doesn't like to share).
>
> Look at ip_cache and fqdn_cache directives (I think ip_cache is probably
> what you'll want to increase).
>
> Other than that, if you're getting a lot of DNS errors, then you need to
> look at fixing your DNS servers. That kind of error should be very
> rare, even from very modest DNS hardware and extremely loaded Squid
> boxes (name service is much easier than the job Squid has to do). I
> reckon your upstream DNS provider isn't doing their job.
>
> So, in short, it isn't a Squid problem, and most people don't even think
> about DNS service--it isn't a difficult problem as long as DNS is being
> resolved correctly on your network. What I'm getting at is that it is
> unlikely that most folks here are going to any extreme lengths (as you
> are doing) to provide name service to their caches--most are probably
> just running two local nameservers, a primary and secondary, and not
> thinking much more about it.
>
> orko wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Just curious what peoples opinions are on whether to put local named's
> > on each cache, or put aside a separate box to do dns caching for all the
> > caches? (assuming we're talking about 3 or 4 busy caches). The reason I
> > ask is we're currently doing the latter, and I'm noticing a lot of
> > idnsCheckQueue: ID blah: giving up after 21 tries and 303.3 seconds
> > appearing. The resolv.conf's all point to the dns cache first, with some
> > other boxes as backups, so squid has about 4 nameservers it loads at
> > startup (none are the box itself though).
>
> --
> Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
> http://www.swelltech.com
> Web Caching Appliances and Support
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 14 2002 - 20:36:06 MST