4 ms·
A billion requests-per-day is not much actually. 1B / (24h * 60m * 60s) = 11.5K qps Let's say 2:1 between daily peak and trough, and call that 23K qps peak. 1
by drivebycomment 6y ago
A billion requests-per-day is not much actually.
1B / (24h * 60m * 60s) = 11.5K qps
Let's say 2:1 between daily peak and trough, and call that 23K qps peak.
10 years ago a single server could do 30Kqps of DNS:
https://www.dell.com/downloads/global/shared/DNS_performance.pdf https://www.dell.com/downloads/global/shared/DNS_performance...
So ~40 boxes 10 years ago would have been able to handle 60 billion queries per day.
I'd expect a single modern server of reasonable size to easily do 100K qps, and probably more like 200-300K qps, if not exceeding a million qps (though a single box may hit the packet/s bottleneck).
So Verisign is complaining about a single digit to low double digit server box worth of traffic.
I have a hard time imagining this being more than a rounding error for them.
EDIT: Updated to directly reflect 60B queries per day figure.
- fanf2 6y agoYou can get over 9 million queries per second from an AMD Epyc box https://en.blog.nic.cz/2019/12/10/epic-dns-benchmarking/ https://en.blog.nic.cz/2019/12/10/epic-dns-benchmarking/ and over a million qps on more modest hardware https://www.knot-dns.cz/benchmark/ https://www.knot-dns.cz/benchmark/ but a lot of the root DNS servers are running BIND so aren’t able to reach such lofty heights
- drivebycomment 6y agoThanks for confirming my intuition. I haven't paid attention to bind performance for well over a decade. So now I am even more flabbergasted that Verisign are even talking about the load.