Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:51:50 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>, Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, josb@cncdsl.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND Message-ID: <v04220801b6ca532b3d95@[194.78.241.123]> In-Reply-To: <ybug0gr3hsc.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> References: <200102200122.SAA04466@usr05.primenet.com> <ybupugd2u4n.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> <3A934507.A0645CF3@softweyr.com> <ybug0gr3hsc.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 6:41 PM -0500 3/5/01, Randell Jesup wrote: >> We in the unix world have a well-founded aversion to storing configuration >> information in binary data stores that can't be accessed via ed(1) when >> the system is in single-user mode. If we wanted to stuff all the system >> configuration into such a black hole, we could've done it with DBM data- >> bases more than a decade ago, quite easily. IIRC, the cool thing about using Berkeley db (specifically, the "Berkeley DB Transactional Data Store", see <http://www.sleepycat.com/xactfeatures.html>) instead of dbm or anything else that is freely available, is that virtually all the information recorded in the database is in a format that is relatively easily recoverable with tools that would be suitable for use in single-user mode. Now, BINDv9 includes hooks to link to a different database back-end than the one provided out-of-the-box, but these tools are limited in scope and capabilities at the moment. My understanding is that they do not provide the level of performance or reliability that is currently available with the built-in database methods, but that this is something that will be improved in the near future. Of course, if you were to tie BIND into the "Berkeley DB Transactional Data Store", you should have the best of both worlds, and the best performance as well. Of course, you could also tie BINDv9 to other database implementations, such as PostgreSQL or MaxSQL, and get a measure of network scalability and high availability that you could not otherwise get by tying everything down to a single host. Now, when are we going to see anything from The Great and Mighty All Powerful Omniscient Dan that supports IPv6? Provides proper referrals when asked questions about zones outside of its purview? Need I go on? -- ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04220801b6ca532b3d95>