>I appreciate your reply. However, I do think it is a bit unfair to group
>BIND on NT with MS DNS.
yep, two very different beasts. BIND8 is fairly current with RFC�s, while
NT4 DNS is based on 1996 level of RFC (when it was written prior to NT4
release in early 97), about BIND4 level.
>If anyone has any evidence that BIND on NT will choke at a certain point,
>I'd sure like to know about it.
It is more efficient the MS DNS (don�t have numbers) even though it was
written to a Unix API and ported rather than directly to the NT API, as MS
DNS was.
>if there is some evidence that at a certain point BIND
>is going to melt as my trafic increases, I'd be greatful for some warning.
I haven�t heard, from any users who download BIND from my site or on the
ISC BIND list, of BIND on NT4 or W2K pooping out. DNS services consume
less than 5% of the machine, typically.
You must distinguish between recursive server and caching only server, the
latter being much less consuming that the the former. You can debug it
easier with the optional logging feature (logging consumes cpu and disk, of
course). You get stats dumps, etc, etc.
BIND can be configured more easily for security and various roles. It�s
very easy to setup using the advanced GUI application called NotePad.exe.
Len
http://MenAndMice.com/DNS-training
http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.4 for NT4 & W2K
http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-abuse mail gateways
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
