Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:58:30 -0700 From: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> To: "W.D. McKinney" <dee@akwireless.net> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: Verisign fun. Message-ID: <20030918185830.GD79031@perrin.nxad.com> In-Reply-To: <1063910930.12694.113.camel@papa.wdm.com> References: <20030917081828.GC43577@mccaffrey.house.so14k.com> <48322287.20030917233959@blue.calx.nl> <1063835258.6538.245.camel@papa.wdm.com> <20030918130406.GA68759@mccaffrey.house.so14k.com> <20030918183941.GB79031@perrin.nxad.com> <1063910930.12694.113.camel@papa.wdm.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We just moved from bind9 to djbdns, and we we were running djbdns > previously so we had about 4 months under bind9. I prefer djbdns > but as we also moved to FreeBSD I trust it performs even better :-) Don't get me wrong, I love djbdns's security record and its low maintenance. After having used it for 3 years without real incident other than random ISPs being periodically unable to lookup DNS info from my name servers and said performance problem, I'm not knocking djbdns... but under higher load, it falls apart (big issue for me). I love that BIND has an actual config file though and lets you do nifty, tricky things if need be. With bind9-dlz, other than security concerns, I don't miss djbdns at all (though it is more complex than djbdns). > What is the query volume you mentioned anyway ? More than 500 requests per second for authoritative DNS info. I never had a problem with dnscache, but never pushed it that hard either. -sc -- Sean Chittenden
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030918185830.GD79031>