Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this powers 1.1.1.1, it doesn't front an internal dataset. A cache miss hits a nameserver. Which is to say, the dataset is "every DNS record in the world"

▲

auspiv 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the question is probably more along the lines of - why not do a database with 100 TB of storage/records instead of a cache? tomato / tomato.. especially with smart caching in front of database. 100TB of flash is a good bit cheaper than 100TB of memory

	▲	pocksuppet an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's not 100TB of data. It's probably 50 GB of data on each of 2000 servers. Because it's a cache. What is the point of a central cache if it's as slow to access as the original data?
	▲	ecnahc515 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Because it would be slower and have different scaling requirements than the ones they want.
	▲	fc417fc802 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm no expert but presumably all of throughout, latency, and churn. DNS is approximately a giant KV store where the typical record has a TTL of ~5 minutes.
	▲	robotresearcher 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is smart, task-specific caching in front of database.