BIND - sorting of reverse domain.

[Danny Mayer]

At 01:33 AM 7/9/02, D. Stussy wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Danny Mayer wrote:
> >
> >This shows that you are not paying attention.  BIND needs to be able to 
> handle
> >the .com zone with multi-million records, DNSSEC which contains at least 
> of 20
> >records with just 4 A records, as well as those mom-and-pop zones with 5
> >records.  Noone cares about the way the records look when written to 
> disk, they
> >just get read back in again when the server restarts.  How they look are
> >irrelevant. You haven't even explained why the order on disk is so 
> important to
> >you, now if they aren't in the order you like, why you can't just write a
> >program to sort them the way you do like.  You are discussing a subject that
> >was decided on at least 2 years ago. To change it now, you need to 
> demonstrate
> >that your alternative code is much faster for retrievals than what is 
> currently
> >being used and that it will be that way under a hugh variety of 
> circumstances
> >that BIND usually has to operate.
>
>So?  For a popular TLD such as ".com", one has a multi-million node tree 
>of just
>the names, and hanging off each node of that tree is the appropriate 
>delegation
>records (NS), etc....

Are you sure of that or is it speculation on your part? Have you read the
source code yet?

>What you seem to miss is the efficiency that can be imparted applies to AFXR
>transfers just as much as it pertains to saving the data to a file at a
>secondary server.  However, none of you bother to look at the "larger picture"
>to see how the overall efficiency of the system can be improved.  I cannot
>compete with people who insist on being "legends in their own minds."

You are more interesting in trees and algorithms than looking at the
operational requirements of a server like BIND. You may or may not be
able to create a more efficient mechanism but unless you actually
implement it, and then test it, don't assume that you are correct.

> >This is not the right place anyway to be discussing this.  It belongs in
> >bind9-workers.
>
>That sounds like someone's private mailing list, not a newsgroup.

It's a subscriber-only mailing list just like this one.  The newsgroup is
gatewayed to the bind-users at isc.org mailing list and is similarly
controlled.  You can subscribe by sending mail to
bind-workers-subscribe at isc.org with the Subject line of "Subscribe".
(It's no longer bind9-workers as it was merged into bind-workers).

Danny