BIND 8.2.3 verus 9.x.x ?? in production

[Nate Duehr]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 09:01:49PM -0500, Kevin Darcy wrote:
> To be brutally frank, I wouldn't trust my production servers to BIND 9 just
> yet. There have been too many recent reports of lockups and crashes to make me
> comfortable switching. But then, perhaps we are a little more conservative
> than most, around here. Also, we have no need yet of advanced features like
> DNSSEC and IPv6 compatibility, and since our servers are nowhere near
> capacity, multithreading doesn't really buy us much either (not to mention the
> fact that most of our nameservers are running older versions of Solaris that
> probably couldn't multithread properly anyway).
> 
> As always, though, YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary). If you need BIND 9's new
> features and your risk threshold is slightly higher than ours, maybe it might
> be worth it for you to go to BIND 9. The latest version, I understand, is
> 9.1.1 release candidate 5 (9.1.1rc5 for short).

I agree with Kevin, but it has more to do with the 41,000 queries one of
my servers took in 40 seconds last weekend than anything.  :-)  How did
I know?  Well, the firewall wasn't too happy with that... let's put it
that way... and I'm sure that server will break the 2000/sec mark
sometime this year.  Maybe.  Er, ummm.  :-)

I also think calling it BIND 9 is a misnomer.  It's NIND 1.1.1rc5,
not BIND 9.1.1rc5.  (NIND = Nominum Internet Name Daemon -- Berkeley's
not really all that involved anymore, are they?)

When you look at it in that light... I'll stick with 8.x.x for now.

-- 
Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com>

GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2
Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others.