NDC vs. kill -HUP

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> "Mark" == Cinense, Mark <macinen at sandia.gov> writes:

    Mark> Can anyone tell me the pros' and cons' of ndc versus using
    Mark> kill -HUP.  thanks....

Using signals to "control" the name server is crude and old-fashioned.
The interface provided by ndc is far more flexible: like allowing
incremental zone reloads or re-reading the config file without loading
every zone on the server. Another benefit of ndc is that it can allow
the name server to be controlled by a different UID from the one that
runs named. All that takes is suitable access permissions on the
control socket used by the server and ndc. Another problem with the
signals interface is that some signals have different effects on
different versions of BIND.

FWIW, BIND9 has rndc which is able to control a remote name server.

Using signals to get the name server to do things is as obsolete and
as as BIND4.