BIND is the caching, authoritative DNS server that is responsible for about 90% of the Internet's DNS system, or more. A number of people dislike BIND however, and are major fans of DanBernstein's TinyDNS.
This page will be a comparison of the two DNS servers. As with most comparisons, it wont be fair or unbiased. If anything, its a rebuttal of all the pro-TinyDns fanboy whining that goes on :)
I'm pulling these points (for now) from Brad Knowle's paper on Name Server Comparison. This paper was focussed on performance of an authoritative or caching nameserver, but discusses the differences in the servers as well.
Pro:
Cons:
Pros:
Cons:
Cons:
Violates RFCs
Cannot put both TinyDns and DnsCache? on the same IP (both listen on port 53 udp)
Pros: The author of this paper didn't have any positive points about djb's DNS suite, although they are widly publicised elsewhere. Some of the more salient, positive points regarding TinyDNS include:
Comparison:
(dnscache) I don't know about the author, but NO bind has ever managed to take on the load that is placed on the dns caches I run for a farm of over 30 mail servers. Bind 9, being the latest, took out the box immediately and a reset is required to get the box back up. Likewise, the part about bind being multiple times faster is complete nonsense to me since Bind does not provide a single answer and at the same time takes out the box in my case. dnscache allows me to get by with just 3 boxes for dns resolution of my mail server farm. I cannot even imagine how many I need if I use Bind. Nuff said. -- ChristopherChan
The report published at the top of this page was performed several years ago - it's possible some things have changed. DJB has a page refuting many of Brad Knowles's claims, entitled Brad Knowles's Slander. I've not taken the time to go over it thouroughly, nor have I investigated relative merits of the two DNS servers further than reading Brad's original paper. DJB seems to contradict some of Brad's points simply by rejecting the wording, without bothering to answer the meaning. Brad also referred to works published by DJB himself regarding TinyDNS performance, which seems fair enough to cite. The fact that performance has improved since then bears little relevance on the state of things at the time. I encourage interested readers to go over both documents and make up their own mind. I'll keep using BIND because it's what I know, performance is perfectly fine for what I need it for, and any security concerns are very outdated. -- DanielLawson
2 pages link to BindVsTinyDNS: