On Tue, 3 May 2011 08:28:02 +0200 (SAST), Buchan Milne bgmilne@staff.telkomsa.net wrote:
I just wanted to add that according many testimonies, like:
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/htdig/bind-users/2011-February/082814.html,
BIND9 with LDAP over DLZ has a very low performance, making it unsuitable for production systems,
No, making it unsuitable for directly serving DNS clients. The
recommended
architecture with bind sdb_ldap for use with a high query load is that a named running sdb_ldap be set up as a "hidden" master, with the slaves running traditional file-backed zones to serve DNS clients.
Regards, Buchan
Honestly, I am not sure how much sense this extra layer makes. I mean, yes, it solves to the problem but to me this is as logical as writing a script which converts the LDAP database content into zone files and run that script via cron. What I like about BIND with DLZ and LDAP is: I edit something and it's there.
How often would one recommend the slaves to initiate a zone transfer from the master in Buchan's recommended scenario? Daily? Hourly?
If PowerDNS really is so much faster and so much more lightweight (i.e. I have to install only what I need; something which always concerned be a bit when it comes to BIND) then it may indeed be worthwhile to look at. Just me personally our our organization, I cannot promise any real time budget for that right now.
Also - while asking myself how much this is becoming off-topic on an OpenLDAP list, but the guys at ISC are also undertaking some serious efforts about BIND 10, which I understand will be a full re-write; see
http://www.isc.org/bind10 and http://bind10.isc.org/wiki
One question which I guess *does* belong here is what the plans for BIND 10 with regards to LDAP storage are. Maybe some active contribution may be even useful. I think they are also heavily preparing for the long awaited future called IPv6. I am not sure how well BIND 9 with DLZ and / or PowerDNS perform for IPv6 right now, especially thinking about the schema.
Regards, Torsten