We use Bind 9 without issue on windows 2000. We use it for our domains and as caching. Not a single problem.
Kevin Bilbee > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of R. Scott Perry > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] OT: Windows DNS and how to Limit (not remove) > recursion > > > > All these limitations of Win DNS are why BIND 9.3.2 is a better DNS > product. > > BIND is great for Unix, but isn't ready for Windows yet. If faced with > the choice, I would choose Microsoft DNS over BIND (in reality, my > choice is paying for a good DNS program). > > A year or so ago, I tried the then-current release versions of BIND 4, > BIND 8, and BIND 9 for Windows, and all 3 were too buggy to be used. > IIRC, BIND 4 would not resolve reverse DNS entries in a timely fashion, > BIND 8 would hang every several times a day (and not be usable until > restarted), and BIND 9 would after a few hours start using 100% of the > CPU time. > > Again, BIND for Unix works flawlessly as far as I know, but the Windows > port just doesn't cut it. > -Scott > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
