Apparently, though unproven, at 03:36 on Thursday 13 January 2011, Mark Scholten did opine thusly:
> Hello, > > On the page with LPI 201 objectives only Bind is listed as a name server > you need to know. Isn't it a good idea to include at least one other name > server (like PowerDNS) or some more "general" DNS objectives? > > Note: I didn't do the LPI 20X exams yet, however I'm looking in to it and > at this point I think it should include multiple name servers. I vote to stay with bind. Alternative name servers tend to have little mind-share and are little used outside the LPI core market, which is not large name server installations. It's not the same circumstance as with MTAs where postfix and exim compete equally - bind is the de-facto reference implementation and everything else is an alternate. Disclaimer: we run a big DNS install at work and only have one cache left that is still bind, the rest are cns and unbound. The auth servers are bind as the load is much smaller on those. But I won't argue for including other servers on the exam as outside of ISPs they are too little used to be meaningful as an exam objective. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
