On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:47:01 -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 10:27:42AM -0600, Pete Ehlke wrote:
> > On Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 10:13:16 -0600, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> > The important operational question is not the efficiency or correctness
> > of randomization in this area. The important question is the effect that
> > randomization and retry strategies have when faced with unreliable
> > networks and slow servers.
> >
> > Compare dnscache with BIND 9 ( which has a more efficient retry and
> > selection mechanism ) in
> > http://dns.measurement-factory.com/writings/wessels-pam2004-paper.pdf
>
> How is this relevant at all? A quick review of the article indicates
> it discusses the pros and cons of randomly choosing nameservers to
> query rather than choosing them based on other heuristics.
>
> The patch snippet in question does not change whether dnscache uses
> randomization---it merely (and seemingly unintentionally) changes the
> distribution of permutations from uniform to non-uniform.
Why do you think it was unintentional?
Why do you think distribution of permutations matters in this case?
--
djbdns-1.05-epoll-20070305T031624Z-20070305T185643Z.diff
Description: Text document
pgp32fwFARahM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|