this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
41 points (91.8% liked)
Technology
80479 readers
3507 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, I thought so to. I'll definitely try that
I've got some numbers, took longer than I'd have liked because of ISP issues. Each period is about a day, give or take.
With the default TTL, my unbound server saw 54,087 total requests, 17,022 got a cache hit, 37,065 a cache miss. So a 31.5% cache hit rate.
With clamping it saw 56,258 requests, 30,761 were hits, 25,497 misses. A 54.7% cache hit rate.
And the important thing, and the most "unscientific", I didn't encounter any issues with stale DNS results. In that everything still seemed to work and I didn't get random error pages while browsing or such.
I'm kinda surprised the total query counts were so close, I would have assumed a longer TTL would also cause clients to cache results for longer, making less requests (Though e.g. Firefox actually caps TTL to 600 seconds or so). My working idea is that for things like e.g. YouTube video, instead of using static hostnames and rotating out IPs, they're doing the opposite and keeping the addresses fixed but changing the domain names, effectively cache-busting DNS.