[SLL] Bind or ?

[Jim Richardson]

On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 06:37 -0700, Francois Caen wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Jim Richardson <warlock at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > I am faced with the necessity of setting up a dns server for some hosted
> > domains on a clients box, so the question is, which server? As near as I
> > can figure it, it's a choice between Bind9, and tinydns. Now, I am *not*
> > a member of the church of djb, on the other hand, I've used Bind in the
> > pre 8 days and still have the scars.
> 
> Are you referring to the bind security issues 5 years ago? Those have
> pretty much disappeared, I haven't seen a bind worm since forever.
> 
> Or is there something else you disliked about bind?
> 


Well, the security faux pas of a previous iteration, while not
necessarily valid concerns now, still leave marks. :) 

My "issues" are:

Bind's configs are somewhat cryptic, although not too bad. But Bind is
(or was, is 9 better?) a monolithic "do everything" block like sendmail,
rather than a postfix like collections of single tools for single jobs.
On the other hand, djbdns, is tied in with daemontools and the rest of
djbware (and no way in hell am I going with qmail instead of postfix.) I
have no experience with djbdns, but I belive it has the same "thou shalt
not modify and spread the code" licence, which results in qmail being
such a pain if you want anything other than the base qmail system, want
to add greylisting? spf, better hunt down a patchset and hope they won't
conflict. 

this is for a small number of hosts being looked up, maybe a dozen, but
a couple of them get several million hits a day, so performance is an
issue, but I have heard no gripes either way there with Bind9 or djbdns.

Also, this is on a RHEL3 box, which has bind9 as part of the std RH
available packages, Not so for djbdns. 

I think I'll try Bind9, and see how that goes. 


-- 
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Reality continues to ruin my life. -- Calvin