Wlauzon
msg:3073552 | 2:09 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
The technical term for these kind of predictions is "The Chicken Little Syndrome".
|
DamonHD
msg:3073587 | 2:29 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Hi, My DNS servers consume about 0.001% of the CPU and bandwidth available to them. I could accommodate ~100,000 new protocols if this were the real cost. %-P Rgds Damon
|
Chico_Loco
msg:3073591 | 2:34 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Global DNS traffic currently caused by Windows, multiplied by 2, is probably casuse for concern alright. For the root servers anyway! And, even if it doesn't slow down the internet, there surely must be a more efficne tway to do this. I don't get why it needs to 2 lookups though. I mean, it can tell the IP version by the IP address, right. And if it knows the IP, it knows that IP version use, no? If it doesn't - it does one lookup for the domain, finds the IP, and then knows what version of the Internet Protocol to use, no? This is one of my weak areas though! [edited by: Chico_Loco at 2:36 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2006]
|
zeus
msg:3073600 | 2:40 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I think it will give google a REAL kick and MSN search will double many times
|
bird
msg:3073608 | 2:47 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Vista will only send two requests when it contacts a specific server for the first time. After that it knows which protocols it does and does not support, and will use only those. And if the end user system is only connected via IPv4, then it will not do IPv6 requrest at all (why should it?) and vice versa. In other words, the increase in traffic will be marginal, if even noticeable. There will also be no immediate spike, because people will be slow at actually installing the new system. Storm in a teapot if you ask me, based on largely incorrect information.
|
Phillipx
msg:3073616 | 2:53 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This is interesting, months ago there were posts hat google is currently limited on space and struggling to put in the additional equipment needed to maintain thier services, then microsoft immediately (or in the coming months) releases an os that can conceivably double the DNS traffic already out there. Sounds like Bill may be on to something here. Windows is argueably the largest user intalled virus on the planet so this is a feasible problem. If I had the resources to go after a competitor like this, I would...
|
longen
msg:3073722 | 4:26 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Vista can simply test for IPv4 first so the workload shouldn't increase until we get to 50/50 IPv4/IPv6.
|
BillyS
msg:3073768 | 5:10 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I just installed Opensuse and I'm pretty sure Firefox comes with IPv4 and IPv6 look ups as the default setup. network.dns.disableIPv6 >>Perform IPv6 DNS lookups on IPv6-capable OSs. (Default everywhere else) [edited by: BillyS at 5:19 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2006]
|
amznVibe
msg:3073773 | 5:13 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I thought most ISPs cache DNS lookups and traffic rarely makes it to the root servers?
|
jmccormac
msg:3073816 | 5:34 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| The technical term for these kind of predictions is "The Chicken Little Syndrome". |
|
I'm not so sure. Most people here would not have experience of running extremely busy DNS (not the average DNS with a few hundred domains) and given Microsoft's track record on banjaxing most things it does, Vista may well have such an effect. Regards...jmcc
|
iblaine
msg:3073832 | 5:43 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I once worked with Paul Mockapetris and can't say I'm surprised by these comments. He's been trying to commercialize DNS software for years. Saying teh internets will grind to a halt due to Vista is self serving. I'll bet his license plate says Founder of DNS on it...
|
ashear
msg:3073875 | 6:31 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Obviously no-one technical wrote that document. Most ISP's cache DNS.
|
sabai
msg:3073932 | 7:16 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| Obviously no-one technical wrote that document. Most ISP's cache DNS.
|
|
So? When the client does a lookup for an uncached host, there will still be two values that the ISP has to fetch instead of one, meaning twice as many requests to the DNS server. So caching is irrelevant, surely?
|
gabby
msg:3073978 | 7:50 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
In 1999 Y2K fears were running rampant. All the world's computers were going to crash because they didn't know what year it was, and were suddenly going to stop. That is, unless you invested in expensive Y2K compliant software & hardware. The people selling the compliant stuff made a killing, and they were the ones mostly responsible for spreading Y2K hysteria.
|
BertieB
msg:3073992 | 7:59 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
As others have said: much ado about nothing. There was an outcry from another technical person (Steve Gibson) before Windows Whistler (XP) was released, also to do with the networking implementation. The argument was that since XP allowed access to "raw sockets", DDoS attacks would be much easier and the world would end etc etc. Didn't really happen. Regardless of what you say about/think of MS, they aren't stupid - they will have (okay, *hopefully* will have) implemented this in a sensible way. What would have have been stupid would have been not implementing IPv6 at all.
|
visca
msg:3074013 | 8:27 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This is nothing more than alarmist filler news, just like "the planes will fall from the sky on January 1st 2000". Even if the prediction that Windows Vista could in someway impact Internet congestion were true, it would be completely negligible - requiring everyone to drop XP and trade up to Vista by the masses for the effect to be seen at all. Which based on previous adoption rates for new versions seems highly unlikely.
|
ronburk
msg:3074039 | 9:07 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| My DNS servers consume about 0.001% of the CPU and bandwidth available to them. |
|
Yeah, but your DNS servers actually service about 0.000000000000001% of all DNS requests on the web. The logic of your refutation is exponentially flawed :-).
|
Swanson
msg:3074108 | 10:09 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
This is absolute nonsense. Look at the crap traffic to websites in general - spybots, crapbots, weird lookups etc. And they then request all your images etc. Whoever wrote that article is an absolute idiot - in fact a prime pillock! And the fact this is even newsworthy is a scandal as well - tell you what Brett, I run a company that hosts 100k customers on Windows servers (I use Rackspace as well) and I can tell you that Microsoft Windows hosting technology is now far more advanced than mickey mouse Linux stuff. (And my background is Linux too) The days of "evil Windows and Microsoft" are a distant memory except the idiots that don't use that server technology and yet love to slag it off. Well, if you do - more fool to you because you ain't makin the best of the opportunities available. I only do things that make money, and it works for me. Guess my application for a forum moderator won't be accepted!
|
Swanson
msg:3074115 | 10:16 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Just wanted to add that all those crazy guys downloading lots of porn are slowing the Internet down too! What Windows Vista does is the least of our problems - 10mb file downloads from all "those" sites probably aren't helping! ....now where was that download link to 10mb of porn....................oh damn can't get access because of the DNS lookups of Windows Vista - so bandwidth intensive.
|
zipit
msg:3074126 | 10:33 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Microsoft would NEVER do anything like this... they always get things right. It is completely bogus.
|
gregbo
msg:3074133 | 10:42 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| I once worked with Paul Mockapetris and can't say I'm surprised by these comments. He's been trying to commercialize DNS software for years. Saying teh internets will grind to a halt due to Vista is self serving. I'll bet his license plate says Founder of DNS on it... |
|
His company would very much like to sell their DNS servers to handle this.
|
ashear
msg:3074136 | 10:45 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| So? When the client does a lookup for an uncached host, there will still be two values that the ISP has to fetch instead of one, meaning twice as many requests to the DNS server. So caching is irrelevant, surely? |
|
The statement is slowing down the internet, how does a request that never gets out to the internet in the first place slow down the internet? Double the load of a typical DNS server and you have nothing to worry about. AOL might actually have to put in 2 new servers, big deal.
|
Swanson
msg:3074171 | 11:19 pm on Sep 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Exactly, why has this thread been started by someone who should know better? And why is it on the front page? There are many issues discussed especially on the Google forums over the past few months that haven't had the time of day. I would rather Brett contributes something useful to these forums rather than the banal crap that has been sent our way recently.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:3074273 | 1:49 am on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
The "Some say..." line does sound a bit like Fox News!
|
plumsauce
msg:3074381 | 4:07 am on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
So, the guy who invented the protocol is finally admitting he did a bad job of it.
|
vincevincevince
msg:3074386 | 4:25 am on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
When compared to current rates of growth in raw number of internet users a doubling of DNS lookups is the least of our concerns. zipit:-
| Microsoft would NEVER do anything like this... they always get things right. It is completely bogus. |
|
I couldn't agree more.
|
sgaze
msg:3074559 | 8:07 am on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I think the massive use of "windows update" all over the world after the release of Vista will slow down the Internet more than the support of two protocols ;)
|
nativenewyorker
msg:3074579 | 8:37 am on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Net neutrality is probably a bigger threat to Internet traffic than Vista.
|
toothake
msg:3074587 | 8:59 am on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
that smells to me like a first atempt to a grey propaganda against Vista ....the whois behind it is up to you to guess......
|
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 ( [1] 2 ) > > |
|
|
