[ga] Re: No more FUD -- what is the current size of the .com database?

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 04:24:58PM -0700,
 Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 52 lines which said:

> When we did our tests to see how big we could make the root zone
> before it went "boom" we began by simply elevating the then existing
> .com names to be root zone names - I think there were about
> 30,000,000 names in .com then.
> 
> This was a few years back, but even then all we had to do was add a
> pile of memory to a decidedly non-studly, and definitely not
> expensive, PC.

[TLD operator hat on]
 
> Generally one can use load splitters to front-end DNS servers to spread 
> the burden across many cheap machines 

The DNS part of the registry is the easiest one. Many root name
servers run on regular PC. An ordinary out-of-the-box Dell server can
handle an huge DNS traffic and an huge zone file.

But the problem is the database: it has to accept a *lot* of updates
(in their bid for ".net", Verisign said their system handled 14,000
*updates* per *second*). And a lot more of queries (through whois or
RRP).

Forget the DNS: the hard part in running a registry is the database,
and the updates it has to handle and the security it has to
provide. With a rate of updates like the one ".com" stands, any
mistake in the programs, such as a race condition, will not go
unnoticed...

Sorry, Karl but only the "alternative roots" operators believe that,
once you can manage a DNS server, you can run a registry. This is
false. Knowing SQL and transactions and storage systems is more
important than knowing DNS.