Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 364 posts

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#111

Post by olds »

lucb1e wrote: post #56

Which ISPs are so bad that you want to use external services, which are further in distance than your ISP, for speed? When I test with my ISP, they beat all of these services (both IPv4 and IPv6). They're simply closer to me in terms of hops. My router is another story though. The Fritzbox (>200eur router) adds 6ms of latency, and that's what is advertised over DHCP. (Might still be fine, since cached queries are fas…

I know you're asking in jest, but here's an honest answer: Google Fiber. Google's DNS servers are ~15ms further away than a local ISP who runs public DNS servers as well (xmission). Part of this is because google fiber has a peering connection at SLIX (slix.net), and so does xmission, whereas Google's DNS servers appear to be in the bay area.

Whether or not it's noticeably faster, I'm not sure, but I've always used xmission's dns servers without fault for the past 10 years.

--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---

4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 17.763/18.264/18.803/0.425 ms

--- 198.60.22.2 ping statistics ---

4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.906/3.457/3.871/0.408 ms

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#112

Post by sytse »

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #78
anilgulecha wrote: post #2

I think we'll start seeing the standard configuration of 1.1.1.1,8.8.8.8 everywhere. Google/Cloudflare tackled the UX of free DNS spectacularly with these gold IP addresses. It's the primary reason I use them instead of OpenDNS, which was an earlier player in this space.

Be careful with that, Google DNS (as an example) will start ignoring your DNS requests if you go over the rate-limit. Not an issue for home users, but an issue for any sizeable business.

Yep, don't configure your servers with Google's public DNS servers but use the ones your public cloud provides.

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#113

Post by ben0x539 »

josteink wrote: post #105
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NXDOMAIN hijacking is enough for me to switch, and most ISPs are doing it nowadays.

That’s quite a bold claim. Got any data to back it up? Source: I've yet to see this on any ISP I've used anywhere , sans free airport wifis. Travelled pretty much every continent on earth.

That's quite the aggressive reaction. ;)

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#115

Post by nfriedly »

josteink wrote: post #105
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NXDOMAIN hijacking is enough for me to switch, and most ISPs are doing it nowadays.

That’s quite a bold claim. Got any data to back it up? Source: I've yet to see this on any ISP I've used anywhere , sans free airport wifis. Travelled pretty much every continent on earth.

Windstream in Ohio does it.

I'm pretty sure I had a previous ISP that did it too, but I can't remember which one now.

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#116

Post by josteink »

jeremejevs wrote: post #94
Daviey wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is 2 main different ways, one which does what you say - the other i'd say is pretty much OK. If your local DNS server is merely querying an upstream resolver (like 1.1.1.1 / 8.8.8.8) on your behalf, then yes - it is no different. If however, you query the root nameservers for the glue record for a domain and query the domain's own nameservers directly, then it is pretty good... As you are neither querying your…

> only the domain nameserver owner knows what queries you made (and you are probably hitting that domain in a moment anyway!) But these are different people, with different incentives. The NS owner may be logging everything, without the domain owner's knowledge, and the NS owner won't even be in the wrong, because they likely made no promise to not log. With a single resolver, I can verify that they're trustworthy en…

> With a single resolver, I can verify that they're trustworthy enough [for me], just once, and direct all my traffic to it.

Apply this deceptively simple principle to every need you have on our wonderfully decentralized Internet and see where that gets us.

Oh snap. Not so decentralized anymore.

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#117

Post by ebikelaw »

josteink wrote: post #105
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NXDOMAIN hijacking is enough for me to switch, and most ISPs are doing it nowadays.

That’s quite a bold claim. Got any data to back it up? Source: I've yet to see this on any ISP I've used anywhere , sans free airport wifis. Travelled pretty much every continent on earth.

T-Mobile does it and that is an enormous ISP.

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#119

Post by patrickaljord »

paulcarroty wrote: post #102

I switched all my devices to CloudFlare 'cause it 2x faster than Google DNS in my location - Europe.

I'm in Europe too which is in Paris and Google DNS is way faster at 4ms vs 15ms for cloudflare.

Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS

#120

Post by soapdog »

lucb1e wrote: post #56

Which ISPs are so bad that you want to use external services, which are further in distance than your ISP, for speed? When I test with my ISP, they beat all of these services (both IPv4 and IPv6). They're simply closer to me in terms of hops. My router is another story though. The Fritzbox (>200eur router) adds 6ms of latency, and that's what is advertised over DHCP. (Might still be fine, since cached queries are fas…

My own tiny neighborhood ISP thinks they are smart and have their own CDN for caching everything under the sun. Of course it doesn't work well, not only it caches DNS and HTTP requests like kids collecting candy in Halloween but it also breaks HTTPS sometimes.

As an anecdote of how bad ISP caching can hurt you, I am a web developer and I was debugging an issue in a legacy system. I had fixed the stuff and deployed a new version. Erased all the caches in my machine, refreshed the page, broken. I thought that maybe I fixed the wrong thing and started fixing more... now rinse and repeat over five hours before you realize that the cache is happening at ISP level and that things are fine in the live version on the real internet. This ISP is called PredialNet, web developers from the city call it PredialCache...

I know this is about DNS and not HTTP but their cache servers will also cache DNS requests, so moving some domain to a new machine and IP is also a quest under their network. For a while I paid PIA so that I could side-step their cache servers.

Post reply on HN