Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:28:14 -0700 From: Danny MacMillan <flowers@users.sourceforge.net> To: Benjamin Walkenhorst <krylon@gmx.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Caching DNS Server? Message-ID: <20041109202814.GB807@procyon.nekulturny.org> In-Reply-To: <41911526.1000709@gmx.net> References: <00e101c4c67d$19b32900$19c8a8c0@loriandsmith> <20041109174553.GA807@procyon.nekulturny.org> <41911526.1000709@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 12:06:14PM -0700, Benjamin Walkenhorst wrote: > Danny MacMillan wrote: > > > No doubt BIND can do this ... but I find djbdns much easier > > to configure. > > I have never tried out djbdns, so I cannot say for myself, and > I also understand that apparently djbdns has caused similarly > intense discussions as KDE-vs-GNOME or vi-vs-emacs; so I want > to make clear that I am not ranting about djbdns. Understood, but it wouldn't matter to me if you were. I've never understood why so many people seem so badly to want to make others' software choices for them. I like djbdns, but I'm not ego-attached to it. The same disclaimer applies to what I'm about to say; I'm not looking for converts. Besides, real men edit files with cat and sed. :) > But I don't really find BIND hard to configure as a caching > nameserver. I run BIND on my NetBSD machine doing exactly > that, and the caching part took no modification to the > default configuration to work. I've actually never tried running BIND as just a caching server, just as an authoritative server. To me, it seemed unnecessarily complex. Actually, it just seemed complex. The 'unnecessarily' was added after I tried djbdns. > On the other hand, like I said, I haven't worked with djbdns > so far - from what I know it seems to be worth trying. I'm > just a lazy person, so I never bothered trying when I had BIND > installed already. =) And since I've been working on a BIND4- > to-BIND9-migration for the recent months I got kind of used to > it. I'm lazy too. That's why after seeing how djbdns and bind stack up complexity wise on authoritative servers, I went with djbdns on the caching side :) I find that djbdns works the way I think, BIND definitely doesn't -- but not everyone has to think the way I do. > Still, I really like the idea of having seperate servers for > resolving recursive queries and for hosting zones, since this > affects both security and performance. Yeah, that's the reasoning that made me try djbdns in the first place. My experience with BIND is fairly limited though so I can't actually make an objective comparison. > Nominum, the company that wrote BIND9, offers a commercial, > closed-source nameserver as well, that also uses different > servers for caching and hosting authoritative zon data. > > Then again, performance shouldn't differ for home use. Probably not. -- Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041109202814.GB807>