On 09/06/2013 10:38 AM, Dan McAllister wrote:
I can't argue with the point about replacing your resolver if it handles
an anomaly better -- but IME, BIND handles "oddities" far better than PDNS.
I didn't know you used PDNS that much. ;)
I still say:
- If you're a newbie, or just want it to work "hands off, out of the
box" then pdns-resolver will not steer you wrong -- it's a good product!
- If you're experienced with BIND, or want to learn DNS (or have some
odd DNS requirements), then BIND is the "definitive" DNS server (and one
of the most efficient caching-resolvers out there)
I haven't seen any data that suggests either one is significantly more
efficient. To be honest, as an authoritative server, I don't think any
differences are very substantial.
Here's a fairly recent discussion:
http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/12106/what-s-the-advantage-of-powerdns-to-bind
There are many others. The opinions continue. ;)
FWIW, I was happy to see that bind10 is in development:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DNS_server_software
But I will add (as a final comment) that CNAME lookup failures are
USUALLY that the CNAME points to something that doesn't resolve.
mail.qmailtoaster.com CNAME mailsterver.qmailtoaster.com
mailserver.qmailtoaster.com IN A 1.1.1.1
See the break? (mailsterver is not mailserver)...
This will get you a CNAME lookup failure message...
Good example.
Thanks Dan!
--
-Eric 'shubes'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
