[Samba] Samba internal dns server vs Bind

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 15:11 +0200, Pisch Tamás via samba wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I set up Samba DCs for two sites. The first site is for example
> domain.ourdomain.com, the second is site2.ourdomain.com. On the first
> site, there will be 2 DCs, and one fileserver, on the second site
> there will be one DC, and it will act as fileserver too.
> Is it true that Samba's internal dns server won't good for that, and
> I
> need Bind, because of Bind's zone transfer feature?

I don't see the connection with zone transfers. 

At the small scale either will work fine.  

At larger scales, DLZ_BIND9 is slower (yes really) particularly if you
ask it to be the default DNS server for the network, but the internal
DNS server also can fall over faster under a high forwarding load.

The reason for the performance problem in the DLZ_BIND9 case is a lock
over access to Samba's DB, and the behaviour around including NS
records in a response.  Fix that by setting:

 options {
     minimal-responses yes;
 }

If you have a large site, set up a BIND9 server with a zone of type
'forward' pointing at your Samba DC, and otherwise forwarding and
caching for the internet. 

https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/BIND9_DLZ_DNS_Back_End

https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Running_Samba_AD_Domain_Controllers_in_large_domains#DNS_query_latency

I hope this helps,

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                       https://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team  https://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT          
https://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba