The thing to note is that implementation of browser prefetching is further putting DNS requests out of the control of the publishers. 10 billion queries was something like 5000 dns req/s and that is considerable resources of some dns service. I wish dns was not per query costs, but it would seem that is the metric that resources would be based on.
The point of the article is to let people know that if you fall into this dns pattern, it maybe a result of the recent prefetching done by browsers, and you may have a way to resolve the issue.
Yep -- nice to see that in this instance, as I noted. Then again, why should you be punished for your success if the reasons for query increase are based on simple traffic growth? Or worse, a competitor just sending you a ton of DNS traffic.
Is 5000 dns req/s really a considerable amount of resources? We were previously serving it on old hardware, with negligible (<5%) CPU usage (tinydns) and bandwidth.
Comments
The thing to note is that implementation of browser prefetching is further putting DNS requests out of the control of the publishers. 10 billion queries was something like 5000 dns req/s and that is considerable resources of some dns service. I wish dns was not per query costs, but it would seem that is the metric that resources would be based on. The point of the article is to let people know that if you fall into this dns pattern, it maybe a result of the recent prefetching done by browsers, and you may have a way to resolve the issue.
Yep -- nice to see that in this instance, as I noted. Then again, why should you be punished for your success if the reasons for query increase are based on simple traffic growth? Or worse, a competitor just sending you a ton of DNS traffic.
Is 5000 dns req/s really a considerable amount of resources? We were previously serving it on old hardware, with negligible (<5%) CPU usage (tinydns) and bandwidth.
If they have a large number of customers all doing 5000 req/s, perhaps they will need something a bit more powerful.