Note how I said depending on... etc.
If you suddenly get nailed with 100 users (hosts) at once, good
luck. Think in percentages and not in actual time :)
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Dan Horth wrote:
> I am aware of an initial delay - but it shouldn't be too noticeable -
> so long as it's the same client IP that is accessing all the
> resources... rather than a round robin proxy setup scenario.
>
> I wouldn't say greatly reduces bandwidth though - name lookups don't
> involve great amounts of data - specially when compared to a web
> page... the problem you will see with HostnameLookups on in an
> increase in latency as the server waits to get the DNS query response
> before releasing the requested resource.
>
> We serve a couple of low bandwidth / low hit sites for some of our
> clients and provide them with daily log summaries - as such we need
> the client IPs resolved... then again I could re-write the log
> analysis scripts to lookup the hostname while compiling the report -
> but that's a can of worms I'm not too interested in thinking about
> just at this moment...
>
> In our setup resolving Hostnames is the best choice considering the
> factors we're dealing with... but I do agree & approve of the way
> that the HostnameLookup directive defaults to Off so it has to be
> turned on willingly...
>
> Cheers, dan.
>
> At 1:55 AM -0400 25/10/00, Statux wrote:
> >Keep in mind that name resolution greatly reduces bandwidth depending on
> >the type of datalink and the user load, etc. It also slows the server down
> >since it needs to call one of the resolver functions and then wait for a
> >DNS reply.
> >
> >Not resolving addresses is, by far, the better choice.
>
--
-Statux
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
