-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 19 November 2002 19:15, Nate Campi wrote:
> > djbdns/tinydns IS faster, > Careful with statements like "foo is faster" unless you can back it up. Well... i tried bind 8/9 and djb on same hw (os: linux) and it was faster. I used queryperf (comes with bind source - /contrib) BTW: i am running bind 9.21. :] If only djb's sw would be free so ppl could just download a binary package for their OS. (i would love to type 'apt-get install djbdns' one day....) > and dnscache on certain OS's and hardware that served huge amounts of > traffic running BIND. http://www.nominum.com/content/documents/bind9arm.pdf "BIND 9 is now fully multithreaded, allowing full utilization of multiprocessor systems for installations that need it." So bind9 should work better on smp systems ? And I have no smp machine to test. Anyone else ? What i like about V9 are views, but i found a problem when i use same zone files on different views - i just get strange errors or no zone transfers... > converting a lot of sparc boxes to woody in the near future ;) We are all linux shop. :] Last solaris box was powered off a month ago. > > policy and there is no support for CIDR. I want to restrict recursion to > > networks smaller/bigger then /24. /16 etc. ... > Use a script, you don't have to manually enter all the blocks. aaaiiiee... what happens when we switch to IPV6 ? > The OpenBSD people are planning a replacement too, but that's a ways > off. so.....we are still stuck with bind. aren't we ? - -- "We should not be trying to use technical solutions to solve a social problem." [Thomas R. Stephenson ("about SPAM" - Pegasus list 16.12.1999)] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE92rhiEyTmlrVpUvwRAj+AAJ0TyCojvwslEIIEqxb6ltEiJqA4zwCeIKf+ Ms5tWo32BIVI0zxxxsZwajw= =2y7C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
