[lug] Clustering for Load-Balancing and Fault-Tolerance??
nate at natetech.com
Thu Jan 31 00:30:38 MST 2002
Definitely agreed. Dan's abrasive as hell (I can be too... hahaha) and I
avoid his software at times just for that reason, but can't argue that qmail
and djbdns are pretty solid security and speed-wise.
With BIND 9 being quite the bloatware, djbdns is an interesting possibility
for many... lightweight and not designed to do dynamic updates, but they're
evil anyway. :-)
Nate Duehr, nate at natetech.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Reifschneider" <jafo at tummy.com>
To: <lug at lug.boulder.co.us>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [lug] Clustering for Load-Balancing and Fault-Tolerance??
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 10:04:03AM -0700, Shannon Johnston wrote:
> >These are good suggestions but they are things I've already done.
> >I'm running Bind 9 (lastest release) and I'm limiting queries to our
> >networks and zone transfers are limited to just a couple of machines.
> >Just the sheer amount of traffic is the problem (I think.)
> >Getting good statistics is something I'm very interested in but haven't
> >researched it yet.
> It *MIGHT* be worthwhile to explore djbdns... Dan's page about it implies
> that it's pretty fast and able to handle lots of requests. It's REALLY
> easy to set up as just a caching DNS server, and I've found Netscape is
> MUCH happier when I'm running it instead of BIND on my laptop...
> He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder.
> -- M. C. Escher
> Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
> tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
> Web Page: http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
More information about the LUG