Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:18:15 +0200 (MET DST) From: Mattias Pantzare <pantzer@ludd.luth.se> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: denis <denis@actcom.co.il>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dynamically Allocatable Name Service (DANS) Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960623171212.7099A-100000@mother.ludd.luth.se> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960623233417.28785C-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 23 Jun 1996, Michael Hancock wrote: > Who said anything about textfiles? The author claims that his work is a > rocket and BIND is a bike. I want to know why? > > I'd like to hear how he plans to handle servicing dynamic updates and name > requests with the performance required. BIND once initialized operates > entirely in RAM and the service has high performance requirements that are > hard to meet even with a static database. I think that you are missing the point. What he is doing is to store the names that the nameserver provides to other servers in a database instead of in a textfile. Not to do the name caching on disk. The whole binary database can be cached in RAM. If the names it is serving is to be uptdated automaticly, by software, a binary database will be faster. (for example if a computer is connected to the network and given an IP adress from a DHCP server, but provides it's name)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.960623171212.7099A-100000>