[nSLUG] Looking for a DNS secondary partner

D G Teed donald.teed at gmail.com
Fri May 1 13:21:06 ADT 2009

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Eri Ramos Bastos <bastos.eri at gmail.com>wrote:

> It's a valid point of view, of course.
> Maybe I like to live on the edge, but I've been using reiserfs for a
> long time now and I never had any problems with any of the servers
> and/or workstations deployed with that FS. And I'm not planing to
> change my FS of choice until brtfs hits production or ZFS license
> changes to make it compatible with GPL. Whatever cames first.
> Same thing for DNS. After my research we did deployed PowerDNS and
> it's working flawless since them. It's a recursive DNS only, so I
> can't see many things going wrong here. And it's so easy to configure
> that I don't keep a backup of it. If something happens and cripples
> the server I just need to load a brand-new Linux image on the top,
> install a single extra package and edit a 6 lines ascii file.
> And that's the beauty of open source: choice. You have your
> requirements, I have mine and still, both of us can find excellent
> options to supply our needs.

Somewhat true.  However you are advising other people on what
they should use in this mailing list, and if you only mention
performance, that isn't enough information, especially if
someone is picking their first DNS set up.  Really, unless
you had a major traffic domain, I can't see how performance
could matter, so this would be a feature I would worry
about last.  Most of the world runs on Bind, and it is
fast enough.

You can live on the edge and survive.  You can run red lights,
drink a flask of whisky, wear no seatbelt, and still get to the
concert in perfect health.  It doesn't make for any proof that
this is healthy or sane.  Likewise your experience running
reiserfs doesn't proof the system is fault free.
Googling, I see many stories of people losing their
file systems.  Maybe that would not have happened with
software that is better maintained or had a larger developer

Sometimes there is a trade off between performance
and safety measures.  Take mysql for example.  I don't
know how it rates and performs now, but years
ago it was the fastest database out there in many tests.
One reason it could do that was that it didn't use
transactions.  Mysql was lean and light and didn't
include safety features present in other RDBMS.
It took a shortcut which would risk data collisions on record
updates, something that Oracle or Postgres would not
allow.  However it was fine for read-only sites like the
U.S. Census and they deployed it.  If there are trade
offs like this in light and lean software options you
pick, it would be better to know about them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nslug.ns.ca/mailman/private/nslug/attachments/20090501/e7166965/attachment.html>

More information about the nSLUG mailing list