2 ms·
Fast nameservers are not as important as author suggests. But either way one extra indirection for nameservers would allow you to choose nameserver records dyna
by zzzcpan 9y ago
Fast nameservers are not as important as author suggests. But either way one extra indirection for nameservers would allow you to choose nameserver records dynamically too. And with large enough TTLs and some traffic, clients won't have to go all the way to find out the closest nameserver, essentially providing clients with the fastest one from the cache. Since redundancy is built in into DNS any nameserver with large TTL going down won't be a problem. And unlike with anycast this is much more reliable and much cheaper, since you don't have to rely on one AS and network infrastructure as a single point of failure and you don't have to even build one either. You can use as many different hosting providers as needed.
- janoszen 9y ago(I'm the author.) This whole setup is built for a comparatively low traffic blog, so DNS caching won't help much. (On normal days I get ~100 visitors.) This is compounded by the TTL which is 60s to account for node failures. The optimization level is in the sub 1 second range, so not having to pay one large RTT penalty for a DNS lookup is quite important. I've measured 300+ms RTT to Australia on the previous box I was using, that impacted the load times quite severely.