|
|
 |  |
Re: Best setup for secondary?From: Richard Johnson Date: Saturday, March 8, 1997
Time: 1:52:00 amAt 13:05 -0500 on 3/7/97, Jim Turney wrote:
> At 16:48 -0700 3/6/97, Richard Johnson wrote:
> >At 17:41 -0500 on 3/6/97, Jim Turney wrote:
> >> Is there any reason to think that there will be an impact on
>performance of
> >> our primary name server (on a 7100/80 also running AIMS as a secondary
>mail
> >> server and nothing else) if it also acts a as secondary name server (for
> >> different domains)?
> >
> >I haven't seen any performance difference between serving
> >as secondary, and serving as primary, but I also haven't bothered to look
> >for one because I can't see why one would exist. :-)
> >
> >Actually, how are you defining "primary" and "secondary"? In the usual
> >sense, a "primary" server is the one with the original zone data. A
> >"secondary" server is one that gets its zone data via zone transfers from
> >another (primary or secondary) server.
>
> I'm using the same definition which you use. So my question can be
> re-worded as, is there a performance difference between a QDNSPro server
> that is SOA for 140+ domains and one which is not only SOA for 140+ but
> also pulling zones for another 50 different domains?
>
> Right now I have only SOA records on one server and all secondaries on
> another.
I can't see how there would be a difference between serving 190 domains as
primary vs 190 domains as secondary (or a mixture of the two). Serving 190
domains vs 140 domains may well cause a performance diff, though. This is
more likely if the extra domains are popular. So, my call is "it depends",
but on the popularity and total number of domains, and not on whether
they're primary or secondary. :-)
Richard
|

Return to Digital Point Solutions' Home Page |