On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 21:45 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote: > I was getting opinions that the response time should be in the > single digit range and that got me off looking for improvement. I was > quite happy with the results I got initially after installing > "caching-namserver." And I guess I still am, it's doing what it's > supposed to do ... I'd be keen to know how they've managed it. Trying out DNS servers on different PCs around here (266 MHz PII, 450 MHz PIII, 500 MHz Celeron, 566 MHz Celeron, 1.1 GHz Duron), they all get the same results, pretty much (as I posted before). > it seemed there might be an observable difference between a 450 mHz > and a 2.8 gHz machine. There probably is but I couldn't make any > meaningful measurements on the Windows computer. I really should put > a Linux partition in it but it means buying an SATA drive for a > computer that I don't use often For testing purposes, you could try just swapping drives between boxes, and using Linux that was installed on another PC. It often works without too many dramas. That's presuming that you don't mention SATA because it's the only way to attach a HDD to that box. Just going by raw clock speed is hard to gauge one PC against another. As soon as a peripheral comes into the equation, that'll slow everything down, the top CPU speed can only be achieved within its internal cache. Considering the task at hand, I doubt it'd be working in that way. -- (Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
