bind 8.2.4: limiting used memory?

[Simon Waters]

"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:
> 
> djbdns now handles millions of second-level domains.

How do you tell? Must add it to my survey approach.
 
> The main reason that BIND is so common is that it was, for many years,
> the only server available. BIND 4 is much more common than BIND 9!

Hmm, a survey I never published a week after the tsig fix was
released suggests.

Based on just DNS version string, and a very unscientific
sample, it was noted that;

Approximately 75% were claiming to run BIND or known (to me)
variants (other entries are certainly BIND, but aren't answering
with an identifiable version string).

I saw version strings clearly identifying; 12 BIND 9.x versus 29
BIND 4.x (we only surveyed a few hundred domains).

(I think sample bias comes in here, as my site selection would
tend to bias to "busy" sites - thus there is probably more 4.x
is out there - certainly that is my experience - but perhaps
only on less well maintained sites).

There were about 3-4% odds and sods, some of which will be BIND
variants, but who cares. Only a small handful put a text message
in the string.

The remaining 20 percent return blank answers or don't answer,
making me think there is probably about 10% Microsoft DNS, 10% I
failed to classify. But this bit needs some more work. So DJDNS
is presumably hid in the remaining 10% unclassified.

But let's not get hung up on "market share" - the best
technologies don't always win, nor the easiest to use. 

Being first, being bundled, being free/cheap are key to market
share, as is platform support.