[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Suitability of LDAP as DNS backend - PowerDNS LDAP backend moving to unmaintained status
On Tue, 3 May 2011 08:28:02 +0200 (SAST), Buchan Milne
>> I just wanted to add that according many testimonies, like:
>> with LDAP over DLZ has a very low performance, making it unsuitable
>> production systems,
> No, making it unsuitable for directly serving DNS clients. The
> architecture with bind sdb_ldap for use with a high query load is that a
> named running sdb_ldap be set up as a "hidden" master, with the slaves
> running traditional file-backed zones to serve DNS clients.
Honestly, I am not sure how much sense this extra layer makes. I mean,
yes, it solves to the problem but to me this is as logical as writing a
script which converts the LDAP database content into zone files and run
that script via cron. What I like about BIND with DLZ and LDAP is: I edit
something and it's there.
How often would one recommend the slaves to initiate a zone transfer from
the master in Buchan's recommended scenario? Daily? Hourly?
If PowerDNS really is so much faster and so much more lightweight (i.e. I
have to install only what I need; something which always concerned be a bit
when it comes to BIND) then it may indeed be worthwhile to look at. Just me
personally our our organization, I cannot promise any real time budget for
that right now.
Also - while asking myself how much this is becoming off-topic on an
OpenLDAP list, but the guys at ISC are also undertaking some serious
efforts about BIND 10, which I understand will be a full re-write; see
One question which I guess *does* belong here is what the plans for BIND
10 with regards to LDAP storage are. Maybe some active contribution may be
even useful. I think they are also heavily preparing for the long awaited
future called IPv6. I am not sure how well BIND 9 with DLZ and / or
PowerDNS perform for IPv6 right now, especially thinking about the schema.