Differences between version 28 and predecessor to the previous major change of BindVsTinyDNS.
Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 28 | Last edited on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:42:50 am | by TonyFinch | Revert |
| Older page: | version 27 | Last edited on Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:04:44 pm | by DanielLawson | Revert |
@@ -74,10 +74,10 @@
Comparison of caching resolvers:
-* BIND is claimed to be less efficient than dnscache as a caching DNS server, and may drop more requests as a default. BIND's default cache is 1000
entries however, whereas dnscache only has 200
by default.
+* BIND is claimed to be less efficient than dnscache as a caching DNS server, and may drop more requests as a default. BIND's default cache is limited by the TTL of its
entries however, whereas dnscache only has 1MB
by default.
* BIND will not send out duplicate queries, and is less likely to be treated as an abusive DNS server, whereas dnscache does not limit outgoing queries if the answer hasn't been cached yet.
* dnscache is not multithreaded, so will not make use of more than one CPU. BIND is multithreaded, but this seems to be problematic in some cases.
* In terms of performance, dnscache seems to beat BIND at high loads.
* BIND will return results quicker in some cases, due to less extensive checking than dnscache. For example, Akamai has some really obnoxious dns entries for its worldwide load-balancing service which is used by yahoo.com. Try a dig www.yahoo.com @bindip and a dig www.yahoo.com @dnscacheip. dnscache takes a while before you get an answer.
* A lot of people cite the file format as big feature. That is, they find tinydns's file format much easier to understand than BIND's. One person likened BIND's file format to a 'programming language' - I wonder if they were confusing it with sendmail?
