| ▲ | auspiv 2 hours ago | |
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 | ||
| ▲ | ecnahc515 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Because it would be slower and have different scaling requirements than the ones they want. | ||
| ▲ | robotresearcher 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
This is smart, task-specific caching in front of database. | ||
| ▲ | fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
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. | ||