A smarter stub resolver??
Kevin Darcy
kcd at chrysler.com
Mon Jul 20 23:22:01 UTC 2009
Todd Snyder wrote:
> The problem with this approach is when you are running a couple thousand servers - suddenly, you are running a couple thousand more instances of BIND that need monitoring/patching/care/feeding.
>
> A more clever resolver, or a simpler caching setup locally would be ideal.
What would be a simpler local-caching setup than a single daemon and its
associated config file, which could be minimal, perhaps just an
"options" statement"?
If you're on a closed network and not using forwarders, then you'll also
need a hints file and associated hints-file definition in named.conf, of
course, but even so, we're still not talking about adding a great deal
of additional care and feeding...
- Kevin
More information about the bind-users
mailing list