Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:51:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why not DNS (was: nfs startup - perhaps it is a problem) Message-ID: <199709150351.VAA22054@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19970915131259.59073@lemis.com> References: <199709142148.OAA22603@usr09.primenet.com> <199709150141.CAA26286@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> <19970915114213.54969@lemis.com> <199709150340.VAA21991@rocky.mt.sri.com> <19970915131259.59073@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Greg Lehey writes: > >> If anybody can give me any reasons for using /etc/hosts, I'm sure I > >> can refute them. > > > > - The box *IS* the primary DNS box for my network, and hence can't > > resolve addresses at bootup until after DNS is running, but needs some > > resolution in other parts of the system for starting up things until > > DNS gets running. > > Interesting. What? I run a name server without /etc/hosts, and I > don't have any problems. I contend that anything which requires > /etc/hosts to be present is broken. NTP, AMD, firewall stuff. Heck, the default 'setup' assumes it can resolve hostnames just to configure your IP address, so if you have an /etc/resolv.conf, it needs to time-out in order to get your network up just to get access to the DNS server. :) And, if you screwup your DNS setup, it's not acceptable for your box to not be accessible (due to firewall problems). > > - The box is on a private home network made up of two hosts, and these > > machines need to talk to each other at times. Setting up a DNS server > > is a waste of resources for a private network. > > Why? What makes you think it's slower than /etc/hosts? Because I don't have the resources to setup a DNS server on these boxes, both in terms of CPU and my time. > > - The machine in question is using a slow and/or part-time network > > connection, and while doing 'local' work with sockets and such > > (programming, etc...) doesn't need to have the link up, and/or doesn't > > need to be using bandwidth usable for other processes. > > All the more reason to run a name server. All the reason to *NOT* run a name server. It's rarely on the network, so why bring the line up just to resolve localhost? > > Could I run DNS and solve some of my problems? Of course, but it'd be > > like hammering nails with a sledge-hammer. It gets the job done, but > > it's way overkill. > > I think you're overestimating the effort required. I think you are underestimating the resources it uses. Do you think I don't know how to set things up? Do you think I don't have a clue how much memory it uses? C'mon Greg, give me some credit. It's an *absolute* waste of resources to use DNS *most* of the time with small networks. (Both of my home machines have 16M or less. Could I put more memory in them, of course but that's money that won't go for fishing equipment, and they work *great* the way they are. Explain to me w/out using words that M$ marketing literature uses what running a name-server will buy me? 'Better, faster, less resources, more features, less of my time involved, etc...' These are issues that make me feel like I've gained something. Telling me "it's a better solution" that requires more work and more resources w/out buying me any new functionality reeks of 'geek-dom', something we're trying to get away from in unix-land. :( Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709150351.VAA22054>