Re: DNS servers
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 06:55:52PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:53, Toni Mueller wrote:
> > There is only one Unix way to use them (fortunately), and that's BIND.
> There is also nsd. I've spent about 10 minutes playing with nsd and it looks
> very promising, I've put in some bind zone files and they work. It was
ok - I didn't know about nsd.
> LDAP or SQL backed DNS isn't an option unless performance is not required. A
> LDAP or SQL query takes far longer than I want my DNS lookups to take.
Here I'd like to re-use the words of DJB: "Profile, don't speculate."
Apart from the fact that LDAP (and SQL) performance varies wildly
across different servers - eg. Fefe once claimed that his LDAP server
ran several orders of magnitude faster than OpenLDAP at a time, and
in a special situation that was important for him - we already know
about tinydns' ability to serve some 6000 requests per second on
decent dual cpu PC hardware, and we also know that on average, the
ldapdns by Mrs. Brisby runs twice as fast as tinydns using OpenLDAP.
This software serves it's data directly from the LDAP backend to the
best of my knowledge - having no intermediate format was a design
goal. How fast do you need to get?
> Of course that plan doesn't work so well if you are hired by a company that
> doesn't see the value of a lab and provides no decent resources for testing.
Hmmm... A company that has no idea of the value of a lab???
> There was one time I was setting up some fully loaded E4500 machines as LDAP
> servers and I had to use my Thinkpad for some tests because there was nothing
> else that I could use. A Thinkpad running Linux is not much good for testing
> the client and server sides of an operation that will be deployed on an
> E4500, but it was the best I had.
Ouch!
Ok, define 'lab'...
Having some spare equipment that can be used to set up experimental
networks to check things out is not only a basic business requirement,
but also (mostly) cheap.
Best,
--Toni++
Reply to: