bind 8.2.4: limiting used memory?

Thu Aug 9 00:32:05 UTC 2001

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Aug 9 2001 00:00 -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> Will Yadley writes:
> > start flamewars
>
> Learn to read. I didn't start any of these discussions. Knowles did.
> If his list actually exists, he should post it, so we can evaluate it
> on its merits.

I belive the thread was started by Michael Renzmann a few days ago, by
asking how he should go about telling BIND how much memory it can use
for its cache, or how much would be used, for use in a limited memory
environment. See Message-ID
<200108061607.f76G7Q632030 at mailgate3.cinetic.de>. Somehow it drifted
over to BIND vs. djbdns - I didn't quite pay attention to where it
went wrong.

> > tends not to play nice with other software and is often confusing
>
> Try following the installation instructions. Upgrades from BIND are
> explained in detail in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/frombind.html.
>
> ---Dan

I followed the installation instructions for qmail 1.03 (why not
djbsmtp? Oh, you have your own protocol - what was its name again?)
and I ended up with a system that was hardly at all usable. Before I,
after many hours of configuration, managed to get the qmail
configuration right (mostly by looking at the only other system I have
access to which was running qmail, and that server is now shut down
for other reasons) I lost most likely around 100-150 emails and got
unsubscribed off several mailing lists because of qmail's "sorry, that
domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts" and other error
messages.

One can blame sendmail for being hard to configure (frankly, it's
fairly simple using the m4's) but at least it works out of the box,
and _accepts mail_ destined for the local computer with a _minimum_ of
work. I only had to tell it that kjorling.com was a local domain and
that was it. Plus it actually inserts some useful information in the
headers. Nice if you want to track down spam, for example. I don't
remember qmail doing that, but I remember being annoyed at the
extremely limited Received: header information it provided (I didn't
check the RFCs, but it's got to be at the edge of non-conformant.)

The comp.protocols.dns.bind newsgroup (and the bind-users mailing list
which it is gatewayed to - two-way) has become a place for religious
wars over one software package (djbdns) against another (BIND). This
does nothing to serve the Internet community nor does it help the
people who actually have to wade through such crap in order to get a
hold of what might be wrong with _their_ setup.

I happen to like BIND, personally. And whether it's (roughly) 75% or
95% of the Internet name servers that are running it, it is still a
considerable amount of servers. That amounts to a considerable amount
of expertise available should something go wrong. If something really
screws up with my DNS I have several persons in my surroundings who
are very knowledgeable on the subject and are willing to help me. I
have never seen a book "DNS and djbdns", however I do have a copy of
"DNS and BIND", 4th edition, on my bookshelf. And of course I can get
in touch with Nominum - the people who are actually _writing_ and
_maintaining_ BIND, and purchase a support contract that fits my needs
for the moment. Or some other company that provides BIND support.

djbdns might have its merits - I am not going to argue that point. I
am sure there are some occassions when djbdns, dnscache etc. are doing
better than BIND. But I don't belive it is without reason reason that
just about three quarters of the name servers (according to Dan J.
Bernstein) to some 95% (was it Brad Knowles who cited that number?)
are using BIND. All the root servers are running BIND, as far as I
know.

Can we stop fighting over one software package over another and
instead concentrate on actually helping others? After all, Usenet was
even _invented_ to share information - not to host religious wars.

This newsgroup/mailing list is moderated. But so far the moderator
just seems to be approving everything - even a blank "test" message
got through to everyone here not long ago. I am a big fan of free
speech, but perhaps it is time to pull the plug here and say that
"this is allowed, and this is not"? In such a case I belive the rules
should be worked out in cooperation between the most frequent posters
here (none mentioned and none forgotten) and whoever is the moderator.
Of course open for comments from anyone.

My two cents of worth,

Michael Kjörling

- -- 
Michael Kjörling - michael at kjorling.com - PGP: 8A70E33E
Manager Wolf.COM -- Programmer -- Network Administrator
"We must be the change we wish to see" (Mahatma Gandhi)

^..^     Support the wolves in Norway -- go to     ^..^
 \/   http://home.no.net/ulvelist/protest_int.htm   \/

***** Please only send me emails which concern me *****

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7cdoJKqN7/Ypw4z4RApuTAJ9S++29h8bGrUm9YAS6GdhSo63VBwCfV1wp
gwafaf6p4VscVdk3juqpVA4=
=aKie
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----