[sf-lug] pdns-recursor

[Alex Kleider]

Again, thanks.

Some thing else comes to mind:

The cache unbound keeps: is it only in memory or does it write to disk? If it's the latter, I think I'd be advised to change the default or use a symlink so that the data goes to the attached external hard drive rather than the sd card that is serving in place of a hard drive (housing the OS) on the plug.

Am I thinking appropriately in this regard?

cheers,
alex

a_kleider at yahoo.com


--- On Fri, 7/23/10, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] pdns-recursor
> To: "Linux userGroup" <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
> Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 5:27 PM
> Alex, just an afterthought about
> Unbound and similar recursive 
> DNS nameservers:
> 
> One of the interesting points of comparison among recursive
> daemons is
> binary footprint.  I just got some data on this from
> Sam Trenholme, 
> who's just released a new entry, named "Deadwood" (beta, so
> not quite
> production-ready)
> 
> dnscache (stock version):  45,016 bytes
> Deadwood 2.9.01 beta:  64,418 bytes
> PowerDNS Recursor:  503,860 bytes
> Unbound:  1,745,920 bytes
> BIND9:  4,055,552 bytes
> 
> This is one of the reasons why I and many other sysadmins
> have a
> troubled relationship with BIND9 ;-> , and why I've been
> an advocate for 
> PowerDNS recursor and Unbound on the recursive side, and
> for NSD where
> one must do authoritative service.  (Authoritative
> service is when you
> are serving up a domain's DNS content for yourself or a
> friend, where
> it's your or your friend's domain.)
> 
> 
> Here's information about Sam's beta:
> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/dns-servers.html#deadwood
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>