I've just started playing with nsd, it appears very promising.
It offers authoritative serving only (only primary and secondary no caching or
proxying). It uses a database for all primary zones (fast startup). It
seems to have been designed for security and reliability.
It has basic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
djbdns/tinydns IS faster, but problem i had with it are the distribution
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:34:42PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a
DNS server that does caching better than BIND?
DJB's dnscache? *ducks*
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel. +31
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS server
that does caching better than BIND?
This will probably appeal:
[root@gw log]# rpm -qip
/var/ftp/pub/linux/ClarkConnect/0.9.1/dist/RedHat/RPMS/dnsmasq-1.0-1.i386.rpm
Name
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:32:54PM +0100, jernej horvat wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
re
I'm trying to install InterScan VirusWall 3.7 on one woody box, for
let's say sort of a research purposes, and I'm having troubles
installing and configuring it since Trend micro does not support debian
disto at all. I've found unofficial debian patch for install script for
previous version of
What about different views, e.g. for internal vs external networks.
vec
- Original Message -
From: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian ISP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: DNS servers
I've just started playing with nsd, it appears very
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:32:54PM +0100, jernej horvat wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 19:15, Nate Campi wrote:
djbdns/tinydns IS faster,
Careful with statements like foo is faster unless you can back it up.
Well... i tried bind 8/9 and djb on same hw (os: linux) and it was faster.
I used queryperf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 23:14, Donovan Baarda wrote:
I am successfuly using pdnsd for DNS caching on; a small network (4 hosts +
2 dialins)
Bigger systems can't afford to change or experiment with sw.
OTOH it would also help if clients would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ave.
I have a question about djbdns - can i have one control file for all
IP's/interfaces that i have on one system ?
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
Many people recommended DJBDNS (both on and off list). I have read the
following paper which leads me to believe that DJBDNS is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If someone wants to give it a try http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE92spfEyTmlrVpUvwRAkV9AKCqixN8hx2VX23YHml9e0MQ/J3qpQCfXcU2
jvOnH4LrM7WW5snOc0l0EJo=
=FvlV
-END PGP
- Original Message -
From: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Patrick Hsieh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: how to upgrade dozens of debian servers
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 10:40:21AM +0800, Patrick Hsieh wrote:
I have some
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:27, jernej horvat wrote:
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 23:14, Donovan Baarda wrote:
I am successfuly using pdnsd for DNS caching on; a small network (4 hosts
+ 2 dialins)
Bigger systems can't afford to change or experiment with sw.
OTOH it would also help if clients
On November 19, 2002 09:34 am, the fabulous Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
Have you looked at maradns? The author claims it's faster than both bind and
djbdns
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:55:42AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:27, jernej horvat wrote:
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 23:14, Donovan Baarda wrote:
I am successfuly using pdnsd for DNS caching on; a small network (4 hosts
+ 2 dialins)
Bigger systems can't afford to
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 01:07, Donovan Baarda wrote:
From an ISP point of view, client often means the small buisness network
the client has that connects to your network. In this case, a single DNS
cache for their network makes sense. In my experience pdnsd is a good
solution for this.
Yes.
Russell Coker writes:
Many people recommended DJBDNS (both on and off list). I have read the
following paper which leads me to believe that DJBDNS is slow and has other
deficiencies. Brad is someone I have a lot of faith in, so I am not even
going to bother reading DJB's response to this
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:37:11PM -0200, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
Russell Coker writes:
Many people recommended DJBDNS (both on and off list). I have read the
following paper which leads me to believe that DJBDNS is slow and has other
deficiencies. Brad is someone I have a
Hello,
Is there anybody knows about cucipop POP3 server's destiny?
One says something about v1.33 coming (4 years ago, belowed).
But still we have v1.31
In fact, I need exactly muttered topics below like docs
and config samples in dreamed v1.33
I need to know more than others; how can I create
I've just started playing with nsd, it appears very promising.
It offers authoritative serving only (only primary and secondary no caching or
proxying). It uses a database for all primary zones (fast startup). It
seems to have been designed for security and reliability.
It has basic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
djbdns/tinydns IS faster, but problem i had with it are the distribution
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:34:42PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a
DNS server that does caching better than BIND?
DJB's dnscache? *ducks*
Cheers,
Emile.
--
E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel. +31
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server
that does caching better than BIND?
This will probably appeal:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# rpm -qip
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:32:54PM +0100, jernej horvat wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
re
I'm trying to install InterScan VirusWall 3.7 on one woody box, for
let's say sort of a research purposes, and I'm having troubles
installing and configuring it since Trend micro does not support debian
disto at all. I've found unofficial debian patch for install script for
previous version of
What about different views, e.g. for internal vs external networks.
vec
- Original Message -
From: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian ISP debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:34 AM
Subject: DNS servers
I've just started playing with nsd, it appears
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:32:54PM +0100, jernej horvat wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 19:15, Nate Campi wrote:
djbdns/tinydns IS faster,
Careful with statements like foo is faster unless you can back it up.
Well... i tried bind 8/9 and djb on same hw (os: linux) and it was faster.
I used queryperf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 23:14, Donovan Baarda wrote:
I am successfuly using pdnsd for DNS caching on; a small network (4 hosts +
2 dialins)
Bigger systems can't afford to change or experiment with sw.
OTOH it would also help if clients would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ave.
I have a question about djbdns - can i have one control file for all
IP's/interfaces that i have on one system ?
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:34, Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
Many people recommended DJBDNS (both on and off list). I have read the
following paper which leads me to believe that DJBDNS is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If someone wants to give it a try http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE92spfEyTmlrVpUvwRAkV9AKCqixN8hx2VX23YHml9e0MQ/J3qpQCfXcU2
jvOnH4LrM7WW5snOc0l0EJo=
=FvlV
-END PGP
- Original Message -
From: Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Patrick Hsieh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: how to upgrade dozens of debian servers
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 10:40:21AM +0800, Patrick Hsieh wrote:
I
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:27, jernej horvat wrote:
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 23:14, Donovan Baarda wrote:
I am successfuly using pdnsd for DNS caching on; a small network (4 hosts
+ 2 dialins)
Bigger systems can't afford to change or experiment with sw.
OTOH it would also help if clients
On November 19, 2002 09:34 am, the fabulous Russell Coker wrote:
So this leaves DNS caching as the only reason for BIND. Is there a DNS
server that does caching better than BIND?
Have you looked at maradns? The author claims it's faster than both bind and
djbdns
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:55:42AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:27, jernej horvat wrote:
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 23:14, Donovan Baarda wrote:
I am successfuly using pdnsd for DNS caching on; a small network (4 hosts
+ 2 dialins)
Bigger systems can't afford to
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 01:07, Donovan Baarda wrote:
From an ISP point of view, client often means the small buisness network
the client has that connects to your network. In this case, a single DNS
cache for their network makes sense. In my experience pdnsd is a good
solution for this.
Yes.
Russell Coker writes:
Many people recommended DJBDNS (both on and off list). I have read the
following paper which leads me to believe that DJBDNS is slow and has other
deficiencies. Brad is someone I have a lot of faith in, so I am not even
going to bother reading DJB's response to this
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:37:11PM -0200, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
Russell Coker writes:
Many people recommended DJBDNS (both on and off list). I have read the
following paper which leads me to believe that DJBDNS is slow and has other
deficiencies. Brad is someone I have a
41 matches
Mail list logo
