Jeremy Ardley wrote: > > On 25/3/22 7:26 am, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 06:51:55AM +0800, Jeremy Ardley wrote: > > > Is there any compelling reason to use systemd.resolved over ordinary DNS ? > > > If not, why was it inflicted on debian? > > It's disabled by default. It's there if you wish to try it, but out of > > the box, it does absolutely nothing except sit there taking up space. > > > > Are you sure it's disabled by default? I don't recall converting over to it > on my various machines. And when I search on it there are lots of pages > about how to disable it, and virtually none on how to enable it. > > I thought there might be some voodoo reason to do with something called dbus > - of which I know nothing, nor the obscure journald. > > Anyway, bind9 works pretty well as a local caching nameserver
It does, and general practice on mailservers used to be that they got local caching nameservers because they do so much name resolution. For smaller networks, I think just having a local caching nameserver that all the hosts can rely on is sufficient. unbound is also an excellent caching nameserver, but I wouldn't bother recommending that you switch unless bind makes you unhappy in some way. -dsr-
