From: Irene A. Shilikhina (irene@alpha.iae.nsk.su)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 00:44:36 EST
On Friday I asked your opinion on how BIND 9.2.1 (or 8) are compared with
the old good 4.x.x taking in mind their overhead. It was because I had to
upgrade 4.9.8 while the patch for 4.9.10 was only available, and I hesitated
wheather it was wirth making a major upgrade. (Remind that only 9.x.x is not
vulnerable to the recently discovered security holes, so 8.x.x requires
patching too).
Thanks to:
Arrigo Triulzi, who suggests a fully patched version (now referred to as
4.9.11) on his web-page
http://www.alchemistowl.org/arrigo/bind-4.9.11-osf1.tar.gz (he's using
4.0{D,F,G})
and Ken Kleiner, who wrote he just installed and was running BIND 9.2.1 on
4.0D. "The compile (with Compaq CC) went fine and things seem okay.".
Unfortunately I still have no information on the overhead of version 9
as compared with 4.x.x.
On the web-site www.openwall.com/bind they say:
"For some sites, it may be preferable to continue using BIND 4.x rather
than upgrade to 8.x". I'm inclined to think that our site is among these
"some" ones ;-).
Thanks again
Irene
*************************************************************************
* *
* Irene A. Shilikhina e-mail: irene@alpha.iae.nsk.su *
* System administrator, *
* Institute of Automation & Electrometry, *
* Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, *
* Novosibirsk, Russia *
* http://www.iae.nsk.su/~irene *
*************************************************************************
* *
* The road to hell is paved with good intentions. *
* *
*************************************************************************
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Irene A. Shilikhina wrote:
>
> Hi managers,
>
> while having to upgrade our BIND (now running 4.9.8), I'm slightly confused
> because the patch available is only for 4.9.10. At the same time I'm
> conscious that line 4 is not to live long. So I'm wondering what I should
> prefer - 8 or 9, taking in mind 4.0D. I'm afraid, these versions are too
> resources-consuming, the more so version 9.2.1 (the current) due to a lot
> of new features (IPv6, signed zones and such), which inevitably has high
> overhead.
>
> I'm very interested in your opinion and experience on how they compared
> with the old good 4.x.x.
>
> Thanks,
> Irene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:48:59 EDT