[2013-03-09 21:37:01 +0000] Mike Cloaked: > Apologies for replying to my own previous post, but having read up a little > more about authoritative and caching/recursive namerservers - it seems that > a good alternative to bind (which I use on all my machines especially as a > local authoritative DNS server for local networking) would be to use nsd as > the pure authoritative nameserver in combination with unbound as a > recursive caching nameserver. Both are packages available in arch. Once > installed both have systemd service files, and it seems that setting them > up is not too difficult - and I already had ldns installed (presume from > the base install) so I guess having those three packages running would give > a pretty good alternative to bind/dnstools Thank you so much for finally doing some basic research. Let me make this entirely clear for everyone: - ldns and dnstools are query tools (their main use is to send a single DNS request to a resolving server, and display the request). - bind is a multi-purpose server. - nsd is an authoritative server. - unbound is a resolving server. We will simply remove dnstools from [core] and replace it by ldns where needed; additionally, I will stop maintaining bind and suggest people switch to nsd (if they were using bind as an authoritative server) or unbound (if they were using bind as a resolving and/or caching server). > it would be nice to know > if anyone is already using these and could post on how well they perform? No. This list is not a tea room. There is plenty of information showing that ldns+unbound+nsd perform very well (much better than bind in fact) available on the Web anyone can look up; do also note that three of the thirteen root nameservers have switched from bind to nsd in the past few years. And please just do keep using your research skills. -- Gaetan
