On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Anand Buddhdev wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:28:34PM +0100, Bill Crawford wrote: > > > Could I please recommend (from having seen it attempted in commercial > > setting) NOT using djbdns? We saw a lot of problems with it including > > occasional fits where it would stop answering queries altogether. > > Huh? First time I heard of such a claim with djbdns. Can you reproduce > the problem? Did you report the problem or bug to the author? Observing > that "djbdns stopped answering queries" without doing a proper analysis > of the problem isn't fair.
I wasn't responsible for installing it, but it was pulled out of production use after a fairly brief, ah, experiment. It worked fine on a test system, but under load became unreliable, with large delays or failure to respond, culminating in catatonia. The guys who tried it out are technically sound, and the test box was similar to the production version. It only happened with a lot of queries. I mentioned it because we did test it, and thought it was great ... until it went on the real server with a real load. However, it may work fine for you with your load. Try it out on one server (I'm presuming you have at least two?) and see what happens. It may be that it's fixed; we didn't really follow up on the problem much (because we considered the experiment a failure). _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
