OpenDNS vs Google DNS: Which is Better ?

I was running a mailserver in a network where OpenDNS was the default. Outgoing e-mail where the domain-name was misspelled would linger in the queue for five days, instead of failing immediately, while the SMTP server attempted to deliver to OpenDNS' catch-all host. Apparently, if there isn't a MX record, it's standard to attempt delivery to the A record.

After watching the CEO of OpenDNS spread tons of FUD on Hacker News itself, I will be switching to Google.<p>Pro-tip: compete by being better, not by spreading FUD about your competition the second they appear.

I posted a comparison here, from AT&#38;T in IL: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=977389" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=977389</a><p>Short summary:<p><pre><code> nsping -z amazon.com 208.67.222.222 nsping -z amazon.com 8.8.8.8 nsping -h www.amazon.com 208.67.222.222 nsping -h www.amazon.com 8.8.8.8 </code></pre> Pretty straightforward (-h tests a single A record, -z, the default, tests random labels under a zone).<p>OpenDNS was faster than Google for me, but slower than my own ISP. However, the numbers are under the noise floor; Google DNS is plenty fast, and bound to be more reliable than your ISP. It also doesn't break the DNS like OpenDNS does.<p>My point isn't that I know which is faster, but that it's really easy to just test for yourself.

Google returns NXDOMAIN by default, without having to setup every IP I might be making queries from. That's "better" for me.

tracert 8.8.8.8<p><pre><code> 17 hops, 132 ms</code></pre> tracert 4.2.2.4<p><pre><code> 12 hops, 239 ms</code></pre> tracert 208.67.222.222<p><pre><code> 11 hops, 186 ms </code></pre> I'm going with 8.8.8.8

I thought the consensus was that OpenDNS is evil, censorship and all.

Off-topic perhaps, but that is an atrocious use of blogging for affiliate marketing dollars.<p>Maybe it's time to hunt down an ad blocking extension for Chrome.