Peter Palfrader wrote: > The management and stability and generally working part. The two > backends I played with where the bind and geodns backends and both were > broken beyond sanity. The "thin" frontend made things worse by behaving > unexpetedly in any number of situations. Bind backend? I didn't even know it had one! :) I haven't had any problems with the pipe-backend (mind you: not the geodns backend) on our test structure. Granted it's under very limited load (only about 40 unique IPs using it daily), but the only problem I had was forgetting to turn off server-side caching. It's been running for weeks non-stop with only minor corrections to my script and a load average under 0.04 even when tested with 100 queries per second (running on a fairly basic Xen VS). I don't imply the problem's with you, but either they've fixed many issues upstream, my setup doesn't step into the same problems yours did (by sheer luck, apparently) or at least it just didn't step on them yet! :) > As I said, I have no interest in repeating the pain that pdns caused me. Just to be sure I understand this, does it mean "I'm personally not gonna get involved with it, but if someone else wants to play and be responsible for it, I'm ok" OR "answering for the DSA, we don't approve of this happening in one of our machines"? Again: this is a plain question without the tiniest bit of sarcasm or flame-mongering. I really just want to know. Cheers and thanks for the feedback! -- Leo "costela" Antunes [insert a witty retort here]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature