5:27 a.m.
Hi all,
caching-nameserver package will be removed and configfiles will be moved
into main bind package. I did this decision because people often tell me
something like "Where is default /etc/named.conf?" and I tell them
"Please install caching-nameserver". So if you install bind package you
have also default configuration which is usable for caching-nameserver.
Regards, Adam
8:05 a.m.
Adam Tkac wrote:
Hi all,
caching-nameserver package will be removed and configfiles will be moved
into main bind package. I did this decision because people often tell me
something like "Where is default /etc/named.conf?" and I tell them
"Please install caching-nameserver". So if you install bind package you
have also default configuration which is usable for caching-nameserver.
By the way, I always wanted to ask... we use caching-nameserver
because the libc resolver can only do per-process caching versus
system-wide caching, right?
If so, wouldn't nscd be a lighter weight daemon for this purpose?
I found that enabling nscd often imoproves performance on
servers. It certainly does when using LDAP, even if the LDAP
deamon runs locally and is accessed through the ldapi socket.
The downside of nscd was not detecting when it needs to flush
dirty cache entries, which leads to all sorts of glitches like
adding a user with useradd and not being able to chown a file
to her for 600 seconds. A simple inotify on the cached files
would have sufficed. Ah, and things got even worse when nscd
started making the cache persistent on disk. Then, not even
restarting it would fix the problem!
If we could fix or mitigate these problems, I'd like to see
nscd enabled by default in Fedora. I need to enable it on
all LDAP enabled clients to get acceptable performance (like
"ls /home" taking less than 3 seconds the second time).
--
// Bernardo Innocenti
\X/ http://www.codewiz.org/
8:53 a.m.
Bernardo Innocenti napsal(a):
By the way, I always wanted to ask... we use caching-nameserver
because the libc resolver can only do per-process caching versus
system-wide caching, right?
If so, wouldn't nscd be a lighter weight daemon for this purpose?
Of course.
nscd caching all "traffic" which is related to nsswitch
(host, passwd, services etc). Main difference between nscd and named is
that named is heavy-weight reference DNS server and nscd is here only
for nss caching purposes.
Adam
1:26 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:05 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
By the way, I always wanted to ask... we use caching-nameserver
because the libc resolver can only do per-process caching versus
system-wide caching, right?
If so, wouldn't nscd be a lighter weight daemon for this purpose?
dnsmasq is specifically designed for this purpose, and in fact upstream
has added dbus support to it specifically so it can integrate nicely
with NetworkManager. Why we're not using it, I don't know.
1:43 p.m.
Callum Lerwick (seg(a)haxxed.com) said:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:05 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> By the way, I always wanted to ask... we use caching-nameserver
> because the libc resolver can only do per-process caching versus
> system-wide caching, right?
>
> If so, wouldn't nscd be a lighter weight daemon for this purpose?
dnsmasq is specifically designed for this purpose, and in fact upstream
has added dbus support to it specifically so it can integrate nicely
with NetworkManager. Why we're not using it, I don't know.
NM doesn't actually use caching-nameserver at the moment.
Bill
4:36 a.m.
Bill Nottingham napsal(a):
Callum Lerwick (seg(a)haxxed.com) said:
> dnsmasq is specifically designed for this purpose, and in fact upstream
> has added dbus support to it specifically so it can integrate nicely
> with NetworkManager. Why we're not using it, I don't know.
>
NM doesn't actually use caching-nameserver at the moment.
Bill
I'm not sure why NM doesn't use it (If could remember correctly, NM used
it). NM + dhcdbd + named could be good solution for save bandwidth.
Adam
4:31 a.m.
Callum Lerwick napsal(a):
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:05 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> By the way, I always wanted to ask... we use caching-nameserver
> because the libc resolver can only do per-process caching versus
> system-wide caching, right?
>
> If so, wouldn't nscd be a lighter weight daemon for this purpose?
>
dnsmasq is specifically designed for this purpose, and in fact upstream
has added dbus support to it specifically so it can integrate nicely
with NetworkManager. Why we're not using it, I don't know.
Also BIND have intelligent D-BUS integration (-D parameter). If you run
dhcdbd daemon and named simulateously named ask dhcdbd for forwarders
and use it for forwarding. It's perfect solution for laptops - you get
forwarders through DHCP and dhcdbd tells named about them so you have
fully working caching-nameserver. Of course dnsmasq could be alternative
solution for people who hates BIND. You could package it and start
maintain :)
Adam
8:22 a.m.
Once upon a time, Adam Tkac <atkac(a)redhat.com> said:
Of course dnsmasq could be alternative
solution for people who hates BIND. You could package it and start
maintain :)
dnsmasq is already in FC7.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
8:33 a.m.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Adam Tkac wrote:
Callum Lerwick napsal(a):
> dnsmasq is specifically designed for this purpose, and in fact upstream
> has added dbus support to it specifically so it can integrate nicely
> with NetworkManager. Why we're not using it, I don't know.
>
Of course dnsmasq could be alternative solution for people who hates
BIND. You could package it and start maintain :)
As Fedora's dnsmasq maintainer for nearly 14 months, I'm a bit insulted
by this. ;-P
Jima
4:11 p.m.
On 6/14/07, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie(a)codewiz.org> wrote:
Adam Tkac wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> caching-nameserver package will be removed and configfiles will be moved
> into main bind package. I did this decision because people often tell me
> something like "Where is default /etc/named.conf?" and I tell them
> "Please install caching-nameserver". So if you install bind package you
> have also default configuration which is usable for caching-nameserver.
By the way, I always wanted to ask... we use caching-nameserver
because the libc resolver can only do per-process caching versus
system-wide caching, right?
If so, wouldn't nscd be a lighter weight daemon for this purpose?
+1
/me just loves dnsmasq....
4:33 a.m.
Gianluca Sforna napsal(a):
On 6/14/07, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie(a)codewiz.org> wrote:
> Adam Tkac wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > caching-nameserver package will be removed and configfiles will be
> moved
> > into main bind package. I did this decision because people often
> tell me
> > something like "Where is default /etc/named.conf?" and I tell them
> > "Please install caching-nameserver". So if you install bind package
> you
> > have also default configuration which is usable for
> caching-nameserver.
>
> By the way, I always wanted to ask... we use caching-nameserver
> because the libc resolver can only do per-process caching versus
> system-wide caching, right?
>
> If so, wouldn't nscd be a lighter weight daemon for this purpose?
+1
/me just loves dnsmasq....
<start flame>
BIND is better :)
<end flame>
-A-
6181
days inactive
6186
days old
12 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Adam Tkac -
Bernie Innocenti -
Bill Nottingham -
Callum Lerwick -
Chris Adams -
Gianluca Sforna -
Jima