Hacker News Reader

Comment by samcrawford | Hacker News Reader

The authors of this are CZ.NIC (whose website is confusingly http://nic.cz). They're the same people behind the thoroughly awesome Turris Router (https://www.turris.cz/en/). The complete hardware design for this device is open and I can vouch for it being a very awesome bit of kit.

The benchmarks for the DNS server are very impressive. Way beyond our needs though: we're doing a few hundred million queries per month, so ~100qps. Knot handles >500k qps! We've recently switched our authoritative DNS from djbdns to gdnsd (https://github.com/blblack/gdnsd), primarily due to the GSLB features.

Lots of great stuff coming out of CZ.NIC - if you're reading this, keep it up!

View on HN

> Lots of great stuff coming out of CZ.NIC - if you're reading this, keep it up!

Thank you very much!

> gdnsd (https://github.com/blblack/gdnsd), primarily due to the GSLB features

Knot DNS already have similar infrastructure in the place to support dynamic responses (the dynamic modules - IP(v4,v6) PTR/AAAA/A synthetis is a fine example what we can do), but more modules are missing. Any hint on what we should focus first? We will probably introduce online signing first before adding more modules, but, hey, if you can to discuss your needs on the mailing list we would be happy to hear about other deployment needs.

re: Turris Router

Freescale P2020, 2GB Ram, 16MB NOR Flash (the stuff the CPU can directly execute from, ty), 256 MB NAND Flash (the stuff the CPU has to copy to RAM before executing), 4xGigabit LAN, Wifi N w/ 3x3 MIMO... All driven by OpenWRT. Awesome!

But what's their wifi chip? They don't mention it in their spec page, and I can't identify it in the schematics. I suppose it's a miniPCIe card?

Yes, it's http://www.unex.com.tw/product/dnxa-h1

gdnsd looks awesome, I just found it a few days ago. We will probably need a combination of manually assigned geo areas + fallback on automatic assignment based on distance.

Anything to keep in mind when using it?

The failover modules can be a little awkward to wrap your head around at first. There's simple, weighted and multi failover modules, and sometimes the one you want isn't the one you'd expect!

Aside from that I can't fault it. We're still running a pre-1.0 version (around a year or so old) and it's not skipped a beat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com