Ken Price wrote:
I'm coming in late to this thread. We too are a hosting provider
(small time), hosting approximately 1600 live domains.
Not to say tinydns is a bad alternative, as it has it's strengths,
but we moved away from [outgrew] it 2 years ago.
I used to work for a messaging service provider and they had two
systems. The first system was the service provider offering its
messaging platform for its own domains and a hundred or so domains for
quite a lot of clients and these were managed with BIND by hand.
eek. i can imagine that was a pain.
In the beginning it sure was.
Good thing BIND has this $INCLUDE thing. That reduced the amount of work
after I cleaned up the mess from the previous configuration maintainer.
So I do not know how you 'outgrew' tinydns. After all the only part
that involves tinydns is 'generate the cdb file from a database for
tinydns to chew' or in other words, generating the cdb file for tinydns
is the least of your problems to tackle.
Look, in no way was i bashing TinyDNS or starting a flamewar. This is
why i prefaced my comment with "Not to say tinydns is a bad alternative,
as it has it's strengths". By "outgrew" i mean we required more of our
DNS server. We weren't a top level domain provider. Our clients
required authoritative and sometimes secondary service. As a result, we
required better RFC compliance and a broader range of features then
TinyDNS provided. That's all. Our business simply required greater
flexibility.
You should have come out with this in the first place. Stating 1600
domains as a hosting provider and then not clearly stating the technical
reasons on why you had to switch away from tinydns looks like a veiled
snipe at djbdns.
If anybody dares insinuate ease of use, performance or security reasons
for not using djbdns, I am going to grill them because 'I' have tried to
find something to replace dnscache, which has this knack of not caching
CNAME records and hammering the authoritative servers of a zone when it
receives multiple new requests for records in that zone before it gets
an answer, and I have yet to find anything that is as scalable as
dnscache despite its annoying shortcomings.
Generally, your business needs should determine the solution. Not the
other way around.
Agreed.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
