The result, after running my pi + pihole, untouched, for 8 days:
local: 53.3%
dnscrypt-ipv6: 13.6%
dnscrypt-ipv4: 10%
unbound-ipv6: 7.4%
stubby-ipv6: 6.6%
unbound-ipv4: 5.6%
stubby-ipv4: 3.5%
As you can see, the IPv6 solutions are always doing better than the IPv4 solution
DNScrypt-proxy seems to be doing better than the other solutions
Stubby doesn't seem to be a very fast solution.
Remember, the key to reading the results, is the fact that dnsmasq attempts to find the fastest resolver by sending a DNS request to all of the resolvers every 20 seconds OR 50 queries.
I was expecting the cache of unbound to have a greater impact on the result, it does have an impact, but not as high as I hoped.
My interpretation (open for discussion):
Despite the fact dnscrypt-proxy seems to be the fastest solution, there are other things to consider in choosing a solution:
- DNSSEC: as you can read in this topic, unbound has the best implementation.
- privacy: as explained by @DL6ER, here, using unbound eliminates the risk a single resolver knows everything about you (the DNS requests you performed). dnscrypt-proxy claims to have several non-logging resolvers, but can you be really sure.
- availability: all solutions, except unbound, are dependent on one or more resolvers, running the solution. Unbound doesn't rely on resolvers, but talks directly to the DNS server(s), holding the actual DNS records. You will nearly always get a result using this solution.
After considering the pro's and con's, even despite the speed test, the unbound solution seems to provide the most privacy and reliability, therefore, it is my preferred solution