Building an MS-SA box

[Julian Field]

I agree with the comments about Solaris's nscd. It appears to slowly grow
without limit. I have had one taking about 800MB of RAM after the box had
been up for a few months. Linux's nscd might be better, but most people
only need to cache DNS responses, which is better done with bind as it is
more configurable.

At 12:41 22/02/2004, you wrote:
>IMHO, you are better off running a cache/slave DNS like bind or
>tinydns.  On Solaris we have found that nscd can be a bottleneck,
>not a help.  When we moved our web service (apache) from HP to
>Solaris, we were getting really poor response until we turned off
>nscd.  I have it turned off on all of my Sun boxes, including
>my MailScanner box.  Others may have different insight on nscd.
>
>Jeff Earickson
>Colby College
>
>On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:35:59 -0500
> > From: Ugo Bellavance <ugob at CAMO-ROUTE.COM>
> > Reply-To: MailScanner mailing list <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: Building an MS-SA box
> >
> > >
> > >> 2) configure a caching nameserver on the MS box.
> > >
> > >DEFINITELY!! currently running nscd-2.3.2-27.9.7 (aint redhat's latest
> > >versioning crazy?)
> > >
> >
> > nscd?
> >
> > Is is better than to use the package named "caching nameserver"?
> >
> > I don't need to cache other services.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654