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

241–250 of 364 posts

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

#241

Post by dhekimian »

solarmist wrote: post #240
cleanbrowsing wrote: post #176

Pushed a shell script to compare all of them from your location: https://github.com/cleanbrowsing/dnsperftest $ sh ./dnstest.sh |sort -k 22 -n test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 test8 test9 test10 Average cloudflare 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1.30 norton 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2.00 neustar 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 22 ms 3.90 cleanbrowsing 11…

Comcast in Mountain View, CA. test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 test8 test9 test10 Average quad9 39 ms 39 ms 38 ms 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms 40 ms 41 ms 38 ms 39.10 cloudflare 41 ms 41 ms 39 ms 40 ms 39 ms 41 ms 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms 39.70 norton 41 ms 40 ms 40 ms 41 ms 41 ms 39 ms 44 ms 39 ms 40 ms 40 ms 40.50 comodo 39 ms 40 ms 39 ms 39 ms 54 ms 38 ms 40 ms 40 ms 42 ms 40 ms 41.10 neustar 49 ms 44 ms 42 ms…

Something isn't right with those results. Since the lowest average is above 20ms, can you share the results of a traceroute to 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8 or any of the DNS servers in the list?

It looks like your results are skewed due to your local network. (On laggy WiFi perhaps?)

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

#242

Post by SllX »

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 ISP is Comcast, a company I can trust about as much as I can throw it, so I use DNSCrypt when I'm not otherwise on a VPN, and have a number of fallback DNS providers for when DNSCrypt doesn't work.

Reasonably speaking I don't need very much from a DNS provider: <15ms latency, basic DNS security features and the ability to display an error rather than redirect me to a sponsored results page. I can do without the extra filters, but as long as I can get those three things, then I would rather use a different service than my ISP.

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

#243

Post by yellowapple »

cleanbrowsing wrote: post #176

Pushed a shell script to compare all of them from your location: https://github.com/cleanbrowsing/dnsperftest $ sh ./dnstest.sh |sort -k 22 -n test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 test8 test9 test10 Average cloudflare 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 4 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 1.30 norton 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2.00 neustar 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms 22 ms 3.90 cleanbrowsing 11…

Results for Reno, NV on AT&T:

Round One:

                   test1   test2   test3   test4   test5   test6   test7   test8   test9   test10  Average 
    cloudflare     0 ms    7 ms    7 ms    7 ms    11 ms   0 ms    0 ms    8 ms    0 ms    0 ms      4.00
    cloudflare2nd  8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms      8.00
    neustar        8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms      8.00
    norton         8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms      8.00
    quad9          9 ms    8 ms    9 ms    8 ms    9 ms    8 ms    8 ms    9 ms    8 ms    10 ms     8.60
    opendns        8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    45 ms   9 ms    8 ms    8 ms    45 ms   27 ms   10 ms     17.60
    google2nd      8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    26 ms   8 ms    67 ms   8 ms    27 ms   8 ms    26 ms     19.40
    cleanbrowsing  14 ms   16 ms   15 ms   15 ms   15 ms   14 ms   15 ms   52 ms   15 ms   26 ms     19.70
    comodo         27 ms   28 ms   27 ms   27 ms   28 ms   27 ms   27 ms   27 ms   29 ms   27 ms     27.40
    google         8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    166 ms  8 ms    27 ms   8 ms    27 ms     27.60
    adguard        159 ms  154 ms  160 ms  155 ms  153 ms  156 ms  158 ms  156 ms  156 ms  152 ms    155.90
    yandex         189 ms  191 ms  188 ms  184 ms  189 ms  208 ms  188 ms  179 ms  182 ms  225 ms    192.30
Round 2:

                   test1   test2   test3   test4   test5   test6   test7   test8   test9   test10  Average 
    norton         8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms      8.00
    neustar        8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    9 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms      8.10
    cloudflare2nd  8 ms    10 ms   8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    14 ms   8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms      8.80
    cloudflare     8 ms    7 ms    7 ms    7 ms    7 ms    51 ms   7 ms    7 ms    0 ms    12 ms     11.30
    google         8 ms    9 ms    8 ms    28 ms   8 ms    26 ms   8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    8 ms      11.90
    google2nd      8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    26 ms   8 ms    27 ms   8 ms    27 ms   8 ms    8 ms      13.60
    cleanbrowsing  14 ms   27 ms   15 ms   15 ms   15 ms   14 ms   14 ms   15 ms   15 ms   15 ms     15.90
    opendns        8 ms    8 ms    8 ms    45 ms   9 ms    48 ms   8 ms    45 ms   8 ms    8 ms      19.50
    quad9          9 ms    27 ms   10 ms   17 ms   10 ms   32 ms   18 ms   27 ms   21 ms   26 ms     19.70
    comodo         27 ms   28 ms   27 ms   28 ms   27 ms   27 ms   28 ms   27 ms   27 ms   28 ms     27.40
    adguard        155 ms  149 ms  162 ms  157 ms  154 ms  157 ms  155 ms  152 ms  166 ms  163 ms    157.00
    yandex         180 ms  179 ms  191 ms  185 ms  189 ms  183 ms  185 ms  184 ms  189 ms  222 ms    188.70
Weird how much the results seem to fluctuate between rounds. Either way, Norton, Neustar, and Cloudflare seem to be consistently fast (~ 8ms averages), while Google and Quad9 are inconsistently fast. Comodo, Clean Browsing, and OpenDNS are consistently decent, while AdGuard and Yandex are consistently slow.

Unrelated note: Clean Browsing looks pretty neat, though I'm curious about how it manages to enforce any kind of "safe search" setting through DNS alone.

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

#244

Post by spc476 »

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…

Does no one bother to run their own DNS server? It's not hard---in fact, it's easier than running an authoritative DNS server, since you are only using it for local resolving.

I ran the provided script, added my own local resolver, and after the first run, got incredibly fast results.

                   test1   test2   test3   test4   test5   test6   test7   test8   test9   test10  Average 
    cloudflare     35 ms   38 ms   39 ms   33 ms   34 ms   39 ms   28 ms   33 ms   28 ms   39 ms     34.60
    cloudflare2nd  34 ms   27 ms   34 ms   34 ms   34 ms   27 ms   34 ms   28 ms   28 ms   28 ms     30.80
    google         42 ms   27 ms   27 ms   40 ms   28 ms   40 ms   28 ms   40 ms   40 ms   28 ms     34.00
    google2nd      42 ms   27 ms   28 ms   43 ms   41 ms   39 ms   28 ms   41 ms   41 ms   28 ms     35.80
    quad9          65 ms   64 ms   54 ms   65 ms   63 ms   53 ms   59 ms   52 ms   60 ms   53 ms     58.80
    opendns        45 ms   32 ms   56 ms   51 ms   29 ms   74 ms   32 ms   48 ms   45 ms   32 ms     44.40
    norton         92 ms   73 ms   56 ms   152 ms  48 ms   144 ms  68 ms   40 ms   77 ms   83 ms     83.30
    cleanbrowsing  33 ms   28 ms   33 ms   28 ms   33 ms   35 ms   28 ms   32 ms   33 ms   29 ms     31.20
    yandex         174 ms  174 ms  185 ms  178 ms  184 ms  179 ms  179 ms  199 ms  176 ms  186 ms    181.40
    adguard        143 ms  147 ms  146 ms  142 ms  148 ms  143 ms  130 ms  130 ms  138 ms  137 ms    140.40
    neustar        62 ms   63 ms   70 ms   80 ms   40 ms   74 ms   73 ms   151 ms  58 ms   65 ms     73.60
    comodo         60 ms   137 ms  59 ms   60 ms   59 ms   59 ms   64 ms   62 ms   60 ms   59 ms     67.90
    localhost      0 ms    0 ms    0 ms    0 ms    0 ms    0 ms    0 ms    0 ms    0 ms    0 ms      0

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

#245

Post by yellowapple »

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…

"Which ISPs are so bad that you want to use external services"

Any ISP that tries to redirect me to an ad-filled half-baked web search whenever I run into an inactive domain would definitely fall into my "so bad that I want to use external services" bucket.

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

#246

Post by yellowapple »

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.

AT&T does it on their home Internet service. Annoys me to no end.

EDIT: lots of ISPs do it, in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_hijacking#Manipulation_by_...

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

#247

Post by yellowapple »

josteink wrote: post #199
badwolf wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time Warner (Now Spectrum) in Texas does this on residential as well as "business class"

So this is a US problem and therefore “most” ISPs worldwide does this? That’s hardly evidence if any.

> numerous examples of huge ISPs with more users than some European countries have residents

> "That's hardly evidence if any"

I'm sorry what?

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

#248

Post by voltagex_ »

reaperducer wrote: post #134
soapdog wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sometimes it's not even at the ISP level. I experienced a similar adventure a few months ago. I turns out that my cellular hotspot caches PDFs. It's not even at the ISP level, it's in the little box in my pocket. Naturally, it can't be disabled.

Which hotspot is that? It'd be fun to poke at.

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

#249

Post by voltagex_ »

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.

How big a business do you have to be to use "free" DNS servers, but not big enough to run your own resolver?
Post reply on HN