BIND 9 vs djbdns

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Long time reader, first time poster :slight_smile:

I've been following the recent thread about BIND. I have upgraded to the latest
version, and I am not considering either an upgrade to BIND 9 or switching to djbdns.

For those of you who have upgraded from 8.2.3 to 9.x, how difficult was it for you?
Did you see a marked improvement in performance?

For those of you who have switched from BIND 8.x to djbdns, how difficult was it for
you? Are there any how-to's or detailed step-by-step walk through's that describe a
reasonably sane way to upgrade? I've read all the docs on djbdns, and once the
conversion is done, it looks pretty simple to administer, and work it into some of my
automated setup tools. I'm more concerned with the conversion from BIND 8.

I've been using DJB's qmail for 3 or 4 years now, so I'm very comfortable with his
coding and restrictions, but I don't want to switch just because it's djb. I want to
make an informed decision.

So, please limit your comments to technical merit, ease of use, etc. This whole
hub-bub about the security notifications, etc. is very low on my list as a factor in
upgrading or changing.

Thanks,

Dave Weiner
CTO, WebMasters, Inc.
800-472-9203
http://www.webmast.com

2

For those of you who have upgraded from 8.2.3 to 9.x, how difficult was it for you?
Did you see a marked improvement in performance?

BIND 9 is not yet supposed to be faster unless you are using multiple
processors. BIND 9.1 has made significant improvements in speed, and more
are expected for 9.2.

No problems experienced in any fashion with upgrading.

3

Well, I performed a quick-n-dirty conversion in about 15 minutes by
grepping all of the domains for which we were the master server out of
the named.conf file and using a simple shell script to run axfr-get for
each of those domains. Then I cat'd (catted?) those files together, ran
'sort -u' on it and ran tinydns-data on the result. Voila! I also
through together a Python script to clean it up and organize it a bit.
That made it a bit easier to maintain.

That provided a useable server, but we're working on a way to manage it
all from a sql database with a CGI frontend.

Ben