Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BIND Is Most Popular DNS Server

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the who'd-a-thunk-it? dept.

bleachboy writes "Last week I completed a new DNS server survey, since D. J. Bernstein's hasn't been updated for years. Not surprisingly, BIND wins. Why is it so hard for alternate DNS servers to gain favor, especially when BIND can be so frustrating sometimes? And yes, I'm shilling."

10 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. MyDNS by Havokmon · · Score: 5, Informative
    I've played with it.. it's defintely a nice DNS server.

    But what I really want is something like EasyDNS provides: Aliases. I want to be able to 'clone' whole domains, because they're all going to the same place anyways based on the hostname.

    Maybe EasyDNS just wipes out all the duplicate hostnames, and writes new records for them between the web interface and the backend when a host is changed or added..

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    1. Re:MyDNS by boaworm · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should try PowerDNS. It's entire records are located in MySQL database tables, enables very easy update/modify/add/delete scripts. Performance is great :-)

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
  2. Not necessarily the best for all... by Piranhaa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Personally, I use one called djbdns. It's extremely small and basically bug free! The author actually will pay $50,000 to whoever finds the first exploit in it or something. If you don't need all the extra power that bind offers, this is a much better way to go. Less memory and space required, meaning cheaper systems may run it better. Even the config file can't be simpler!! cat /etc/tinydns/root/data .pnet:10.0.3.33:a:259200 .10.in-addr.arpa::ns.pnet: #Define hosts & aliases =pollux.pnet:10.0.3.1 =altair.pnet:10.0.3.2

  3. Reasons why DJBDNS is not more common by James+Youngman · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Its config file syntax is even more human-unfriendly than BIND's
    2. It doesn't allow free reign to set the records up exactly how you want (trivially for example, it forces you to adopt a mandatory naming convention for MX records - though the convention is pretty sensible)
    3. It doesn't support caching, so you need a separate server for that (this is actually good, but it does add to the overall amount of work required to set up a set of DNS servers)
    4. Some people find DJB difficult to get on with and/or were turned off by the whole problem around (non) distribution of modified versions of qmail, and so avoid DJB's other offerings
  4. The reason DjbDNS hasn't been updated in forever.. by Sevn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is because it has been done forever. Instead of the exploit a year phenomenon you have with Bind, there haven't been any yet. When Bind can take 10,000 requests per second on a dual Xeon box (used for MAPS) and not melt into a smoky plastic dog treat, let me know. Don't get me wrong. Djb is slightly, well, he comes across as a bitter man with something to prove. And I can't stand qmail. But he hit the nail on the head with DjbDNS. I've got nearly 240 domains with a combined total of over 125,000 records hosted with no problem.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  5. Re:De Facto by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Informative

    When other MTAs can match Sendmail's flexibility, then maybe I'll consider switching.

    I think you hit the nail on the head. These big, some would say bloated, systems end up getting used because they're flexible. Others are constantly writing 3rd party stuff that specifically use these systems.

    Case in point: Microsoft ADS is very DNS dependant and the only DNS they support besides Microsoft DNS is BIND. BIND may, or may not be the best DNS out there, but because it's the standard people are building their systems to, it is almost certainly the most compatible and, by extension, the most flexible.

    TW

  6. Re:You really see which DNS does heavy lifting. by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Despite only having 2% of the installs, TinyDNS serves 15% of all domains on the internet. Obviousy it is very capable, and has few to no exploits available for it. Why don't more people use TinyDNS if it's so capable?

    tinydns is unmaintained software. It does not compile out of the boxon modern systems. You don't have a license, so you can only do with it what your local copyright law permits (which may or may not be enough). The zone file format of tinydns is non-standard. The answers it generates are often excessively verbose (e.g. redundant NS records). Third-party documentation suggests a configuration that violates recommendations of TLD operators and most ISPs, which means that you have to redo parts of it once you receive your first delegation.

    And so on. Go ahead and use BIND alternatives for authoritative name servers, but try to avoid tinydns.

  7. Re:probably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly. What is so difficult about setting up BIND for an average site? I was able to set up BIND on Woody by installing the package, reading documentation for 15 minutes and then editing a few example zone files. And I have never ever set up a DNS server before (though I know quite a bit about how DNS protocol works).

    Now, I clicked on one of the links in this story and found that to configure tinydns (as an example) you have to learn some strange sendmail-like syntax:
    =www.panic.mil:1.8.7.99
    @panic.mil:1.8.7 .88:mail.panic.mil.:0
    Zpanic.mil:dns1.panic.mil:h ostmaster.panic.mil::72 00:3600:604800:3600

    Heh, WTF? I would have to learn this syntax and how it relates to common DNS terminology (A, CN, MX, ...) AND learn what the common DNS terminology means. In the BIND case, I only need the common terminology.

    All for all, I'd say BIND is used not only because it's default. It's default and sufficiently easy to use so most people do not feel the need to replace it. As a bonus, if there is a security problem, it is likely to be fixed REALLY fast upon discovery, which is a bit less probable for the other servers (because they are not used as frequently).

  8. Re:The alternatives by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Which modern systems are those exactly? I've never had any trouble getting it to compile...

    Systems with a recent version of GNU libc.

    When you say unmaintained ... surely that's just because there's been nothing to change about it? Are there outstanding bugs?

    It's not bugs, it's lack of features: IPv6 support, CIDR support for dnscache configuration, maybe even DNSSEC even you want to give it a try.

  9. Re:You really see which DNS does heavy lifting. by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 4, Informative

    RFC 1035 (STD 13) describes the format of zone files (which are called "master files" in this document).