On 01/13/2016 04:34 AM, Philippe Maechler wrote:
My idea for the new setup is:
---
caching servers
- Setup new caching servers
- Configure the ipv4 addresses of both (old) servers on the new servers as a
/32 and setup an anycast network.
This way the stupid client
Re vmware, I’m definitely interested in anything folks
have discovered about udp performance issues but I have
no negative experience to offer. We mix vmware and hardware,
but have both auth and query servers on both. Load tests
didn’t reveal any issues that made us reconsider.
We had an interes
Mike Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
>
> I've ran several large DNS infras over the years. Back in 2005/6 I
> finally drank the koolaid and migrated a large caching infra
> (authoritative was kept on bare metal) to VMWare+Linux.
Amusingly our setup is the exact opposite - authoritative on VMs and
recu
On 1/13/16, 4:02 PM, "bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org on behalf of Reindl
Harald" wrote:
>Am 13.01.2016 um 19:54 schrieb Mike Hoskins (michoski):
>> I've ran several large DNS infras over the years. Back in 2005/6 I
>> finally drank the koolaid and migrated a large caching infra
>> (authoritat
Am 13.01.2016 um 19:54 schrieb Mike Hoskins (michoski):
I've ran several large DNS infras over the years. Back in 2005/6 I
finally drank the koolaid and migrated a large caching infra
(authoritative was kept on bare metal) to VMWare+Linux
i would be careful compare 2005/2006 with now for a l
On 1/13/16, 10:28 AM, "bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org on behalf of
Reindl Harald" wrote:
>
>
>Am 13.01.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Lightner, Jeff:
>> We chose to do BIND on physical for our externally authoritative
>>servers.
>>
>> We use Windows DNS for internal.
>>
>> One thing you should do if yo
Am 13.01.2016 um 16:19 schrieb Lightner, Jeff:
We chose to do BIND on physical for our externally authoritative servers.
We use Windows DNS for internal.
One thing you should do if you're doing virtual is be sure you don't have your
guests running on the same node of a cluster. If that nod
We chose to do BIND on physical for our externally authoritative servers.
We use Windows DNS for internal.
One thing you should do if you're doing virtual is be sure you don't have your
guests running on the same node of a cluster. If that node fails your DNS is
going down. Ideally if
Hello Philippe
>> where did you read that?
>
> I don't remember where I read that. I guess it was on a mailing list where
> the OP had issues with either a DHCP or syslog server. It all came down to
> the vmware host/switch which was not good enough for udp services. Could be
> that this was on V
> > > Complexity?
> >
> > which complexity?
> >
> > a virtual guest is less complex because you don't need a ton of daemons
> > for hardware-monitoring, drivers and what not on the guest
>
> For me the relevant comparison is my ordinary OS vs. my ordinary OS +
> VMWare.
>
> > complex are 30 phyisc
>> I'm not sure if it is a good thing to have physical serves, although we
have
>> a vmware cluster in both nodes which has enough capacity (ram, cpu,
disk)?
>> I once read that the vmware boxes have a performance issue with heavy udp
>> based services. Did anyone of you face such an issue? Are yo
> > Complexity?
>
> which complexity?
>
> a virtual guest is less complex because you don't need a ton of daemons
> for hardware-monitoring, drivers and what not on the guest
For me the relevant comparison is my ordinary OS vs. my ordinary OS +
VMWare.
> complex are 30 phyiscal servers instead
Am 13.01.2016 um 13:50 schrieb Ray Bellis:
On 13/01/2016 12:44, Reindl Harald wrote:
where did you read that?
we don't run *anything* on physical machines and all our nameservers
(auth, caching with a mix of bind/unbound/rbldnsd) as anything else runs
on top of VMware vSphere 5.5, previously
first: no idea why you can't just respond to the list instead break
"reply-list" and threading for others where duplicate mail get filtered
and the offlist-reply without headers arrives
Am 13.01.2016 um 14:06 schrieb sth...@nethelp.no:
we don't run *anything* on physical machines and all our n
> we don't run *anything* on physical machines and all our nameservers
> (auth, caching with a mix of bind/unbound/rbldnsd) as anything else runs
> on top of VMware vSphere 5.5, previously 4.1/5.0 since 2008
>
> there is zero to no justification these days for run anything on bare
> metal when
On 13/01/2016 12:44, Reindl Harald wrote:
> where did you read that?
>
> we don't run *anything* on physical machines and all our nameservers
> (auth, caching with a mix of bind/unbound/rbldnsd) as anything else runs
> on top of VMware vSphere 5.5, previously 4.1/5.0 since 2008
ISTR that some of
Am 13.01.2016 um 13:34 schrieb Philippe Maechler:
I'm not sure if it is a good thing to have physical serves, although we have
a vmware cluster in both nodes which has enough capacity (ram, cpu, disk)?
I once read that the vmware boxes have a performance issue with heavy udp
based services. Did
Hello bind-users
We have to deploy new auth. and caching DNS Servers in our environment and
we're unsure how we should set it up.
current setup
-
We currently have two main pop's and in each one a physical auth. and
caching server. All four boxes are running Bind9.x on FreeBSD
au
18 matches
Mail list logo
