>>> After all the "other improvements in performance" that you cited, what is
>>> the performance difference between map and the other formats?
>>
>> I don’t know that, to be honest. We don’t have the resources to benchmark
>> everything. Maybe someone on this list could? We would also like to be able
>> to embark on a wholesale update to the rbtdb next year and this is the sort
>> of thing that might complicate refactoring unnecessarily.
I was wrong, and in fact we have benchmarked it. See
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2882
<https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/-/issues/2882> for details. Map
format is still faster than raw, but not so much faster that it warrants
retaining it, given it is riskier, harder to maintain and we have no feedback
from users that it is important to them. It also seems not to work with large
numbers of zones, (>100K) at least in current versions of 9.11 and 9.16, which
is further indication that it isn’t in wide use or we would have had
complaints.
We also have discussed internally that there are other factors, other than
loading the zone files, that may have more impact on the time it takes a BIND
server to restart.
If anyone out there is using it successfully, and wants us to keep this
feature, this would be the time to speak up!
Thank you,
Vicky
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions.
Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
