[Dnsmasq-discuss] When would DNSMasq NOT be preferred over something like BIND or djbdns?

[Charles Marcus]

I started, but never sent this message, but am still curious as to the 
answers I might get...

************************************

> Releases before 2.35 will choke reading a file this big. The code was
> re-written in 2.35 to make it usable. (and also to re-size the hash 
> table based on the size of /etc/hosts, which addresses Jan's point).
> 
> I'd expect the next choke-point to be reverse (address->names) DNS 
> lookups, which are not hashed. I don't of anybody who has hit that 
> brick wall yet, but 700,000 might. You will have to test. The lookup
> time should scale linearly with the size of the hosts file for
> reverse lookups, and much less than linearly for forward lookups.

Wow! I've only recently stumbled across DNSMasq, and am very impressed
so far, just with what I've read.

At first glance, I figured it would probably only be good for very small
setups, but from what I've been reading - ie, this thread for one - it
looks like it will work well in even fairly large environments.

I look forward to playing with it and seeing how well it will work for
some of my projects/clients. For the smaller ones it looks like using
DNSMasq is a no-brainer.

Question:
What would you say are the primary factors that would cause one to
consider NOT using DNSMasq, in favor of something heavier like BIND?

Thanks Simon! Looks like DNSMasq is another fine project to add to my
arsenal - which would be pretty much empty without people like you who
do all the hard work... ;)

-- 

Best regards,

Charles