On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:32:54PM +0100, jernej horvat wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday 19 November 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote: > > > So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS > > server that does caching better than BIND? > > djbdns/tinydns IS faster, Careful with statements like "foo is faster" unless you can back it up. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103716910900001&r=1&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103256753400001&r=1&w=2 I've had trouble scaling to large amounts of traffic using both tinydns and dnscache on certain OS's and hardware that served huge amounts of traffic running BIND. Note that I've found that the same sparc hardware running Linux more than doubles the performance of both tinydns and dnscache. I'll be converting a lot of sparc boxes to woody in the near future ;) > but problem i had with it are the distribution > 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. For 10.0.192.0 - 10.0.255.0: $ cd /service/dnscache/root/ip $ for net in `seq 192 1 255` ; do touch 10.0.$net ;done > there is also pdnsd - http://home.t-online.de/home/Moestl/ and dnrd > http://dnrd.nevalabs.org/ > > but there are meant for personal use. I don't know if they would > handle the load. The OpenBSD people are planning a replacement too, but that's a ways off. -- Nate Campi http://www.campin.net "When angry, count four; when very angry, swear." - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar(1894) - Samuel Clemens
Attachment:
pgpndcrqa7uEc.pgp
Description: PGP signature