Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That in itself I'm not sure I have an issue with 100%...

It is the only DNS servers that are guaranteed to have accurate results and respond quickly. The only time I use local DNS inside of my LAN is when I need local LAN entries.

The issue I have is it not reading /etc/resolv.conf, but if resolv.conf isn't setup or setup properly, falling back to Google's is a good solution.

Also, at my company (we do DDoS mitigated dedicated servers), we deploy servers with Google's set by default: we have access to Google over Equinix IX, going out to 8.8.8.8 responds as fast or faster than it does with bind, dnsmasq, and unbound, even when the entry is clearly already cached, with the DNS cache daemon running on a server in the same rack; and for uncached, Google is usually much faster.



Am I missing something? In the linked thread they say it reads /etc/resolv.conf and its entries have precedence.


Doesn't work so well when you take your laptop with you on travvel to China?


You shouldn't be taking electronics in or out of China, to be honest. Too much evidence that China is successfully MITMing SSL/TLS connections and physically tampering with electronics.


[deleted]


What other server do you suggest (or do you suggest none, which increases the 70% to 100%)?


I suggest no servers. They aren't something that should be hardcoded.


How about their own servers and CDNs?

If you're getting the HTML from them, you could also get your JS dependencies from them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: