8.3 vs 8.4

Thomas Schulz schulz at adi.com
Mon Dec 8 18:50:55 UTC 2003


>Subject: Re: 8.3 vs 8.4
>
>> > According to this document Bind 8 is faster than Bind 9
>>
>> True, but so what? Very few name servers get the sort of query
>> load that means performance is truly critical.
>
>> Yes, BIND9 uses more resources than BIND8. This simply won't matter
>> unless someone is running a name server on tiny hardware, say an M68K
>> box with 8MB of RAM.
>
>Despite your rather arrogant presumption that people do not need a smaller
>memory footprint, or faster processing of queries, truth is, that BIND9 is
>bloated, slower, and still rather buggy. Ever since BIND9 came out there has
>been an endless stream of patches, sub-releases, and fixes for all sorts of
>things; some of which are rather serious, like common recursion errors. D.
>J. Bernstein tracked them all down, and noted that since BIND 9.0.0b2, until
>BIND 9.2.2rc1, the number of official bugs ran into, yes, ... six hundred
>seventy-two!
>
>So much for your "clean" and "coherent design". They started from scratch
>with BIND9, so a lot of bugs are to be expected. But it also means BIND9,
>for all purposes and intent, is still beta-ware. And it shows.
>
>- Mark

By that argument, BIND8 is also beta-ware as there are more bugs and
more patches, sub-releases, and fixes for BIND8 than for BIND9.

Tom schulz
Applied Dynamics Intl.
schulz at adi.com


More information about the bind-users mailing list