At that point, it becomes slow to start, since it has to read in every zone during it's start, and management can become cumbersome. I have used bind up to about 120,000 zones, and it would take about an hour to start. Once started, it worked fine for a while, then would pound memory, or have odd hiccups, etc.
We moved to MyDNS, since everything is in mysql, with a MyDNS cache and a mysql cache, most of the well-used zones are always ready, and it starts in about 2 seconds. That is saying something since we now have over 330,000 zones in it. It is an incredibly good DNS server for that many records. It is more work than BIND since you have to deal with mysql as well, but worth it for the advantages in handling large amounts of zones.
Of course, that is just for authoritative. MyDNS isn't a resolver. For resolvers, I haven't found anything that will do better than BIND (assuming you don't use the Redhat version, it's terrible).
I would suggest BIND for small installs, and MyDNS for large. If you want to play with those lesser used DNS servers, go for it, but keep in mind that BIND is a resume builder; the rest are not. And BIND will do everything you need or want.
-Steve Kimball Larsen wrote:
So, I've got to handle setting up DNS on a linux box for the first time - done it before on a mac, but used a spiffy interface that hid the icky underpinnings of BIND from me and made it a cinch to set everything up.What server does everyone like here? I've heard that there are others besides BIND to consier, but not sure which ones are worth looking into.Thanks! -- Kimball /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
