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

251–260 of 364 posts

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

#251

Post by ryanlol »

oasisbob wrote: post #217
ryanlol wrote: post #169

Why is google DNS listed as "private"? They permanently log all of your DNS queries. https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy

That page specifically says that they don't: > Google Public DNS stores two sets of logs: temporary and permanent. The temporary logs store the full IP address of the machine you're using. [...] We delete these temporary logs within 24 to 48 hours. > In the permanent logs, we don't keep personally identifiable information or IP information. We do keep some location information (at the city/metro level) so that we can…

Read the page.

>Finally, if you're interested in knowing what else we log when you use Google Public DNS, here is the full list of items that are included in our permanent logs:

>Request domain name, e.g. www.google.com

>Client's AS (autonomous system or ISP), e.g. AS15169

>User's geolocation information: i.e. geocode, region ID, city ID, and metro code

>Absolute arrival time in seconds

Not tracking individual IPs doesn't mean shit.

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

#253

Post by nothrabannosir »

corobo wrote: post #222
JohnKacz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welp glad to know I was trying to dig www.pornhub.com on my work network.

Worse than that, you were running scripts without knowing what they do

To be fair, every single time I install an emacs or vim plugin, npm lib, ruby gem, pip package, or anything close, so do I.

Really the only code I audit is a 2 page script on HN because I feel someone might judge me if I don't. But even then, I sort of gave up after the first page.

Computer security is so fubar, it's not even funny.

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

#254

Post by daniel-alex »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #179
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…

All ISPs in Denmark are required to implement a filtering list of somewhat arbitrarily chosen websites, including a number of torrent sites, illegal pornography and probably others. There is a very reasonably fear that this could be used for political purposes. This filter list is implemented through DNS, making third-party DNS services the most practical workaround.

The same thing happens here in Portugal since 2015. The fact that the block orders don't even go through a court first makes it even worst.

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

#255

Post by always_good »

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…

From Guadalajara via Totalplay:

                   test1   test2   test3   test4   test5   test6   test7   test8   test9   test10  Average
    cloudflare     24 ms   22 ms   23 ms   22 ms   22 ms   22 ms   22 ms   22 ms   30 ms   33 ms     24.20
    norton         72 ms   34 ms   33 ms   35 ms   34 ms   45 ms   33 ms   32 ms   32 ms   32 ms     38.20
    cloudflare2nd  25 ms   24 ms   22 ms   28 ms   24 ms   22 ms   24 ms   27 ms   25 ms   172 ms    39.30
    cleanbrowsing  33 ms   58 ms   34 ms   35 ms   33 ms   33 ms   33 ms   51 ms   55 ms   34 ms     39.90
    opendns        31 ms   30 ms   31 ms   67 ms   31 ms   68 ms   32 ms   57 ms   32 ms   32 ms     41.10
    neustar        105 ms  33 ms   33 ms   33 ms   33 ms   56 ms   33 ms   32 ms   33 ms   37 ms     42.80
    google2nd      46 ms   53 ms   57 ms   46 ms   53 ms   55 ms   48 ms   55 ms   48 ms   66 ms     52.70
    google         68 ms   53 ms   46 ms   64 ms   79 ms   56 ms   47 ms   54 ms   46 ms   82 ms     59.50
    comodo         71 ms   73 ms   71 ms   72 ms   97 ms   73 ms   88 ms   74 ms   73 ms   75 ms     76.70
    quad9          73 ms   144 ms  72 ms   92 ms   72 ms   111 ms  71 ms   73 ms   71 ms   75 ms     85.40
    yandex         213 ms  273 ms  333 ms  386 ms  244 ms  304 ms  184 ms  277 ms  294 ms  287 ms    279.50
    adguard        304 ms  243 ms  1190 ms 288 ms  388 ms  294 ms  399 ms  286 ms  289 ms  234 ms    391.50

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

#256

Post by chris_wot »

SllX wrote: post #242
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 ex…

Do you use Netflix? If so, how do you get access if you use a third party DNS service?

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

#257

Post by SllX »

chris_wot wrote: post #256
SllX wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

Do you use Netflix? If so, how do you get access if you use a third party DNS service?

Netflix doesn't care who your DNS resolver is. They might care if you access it through a VPN, which I don't.

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

#258

Post by Arkanosis »

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…

Thanks.

Paris, France (OVH ADSL link FWIW):

    test1   test2   test3   test4   test5   test6   test7   test8   test9   test10  Average
    cloudflare2nd  9 ms    9 ms    10 ms   9 ms    9 ms    9 ms    9 ms    9 ms    9 ms    9 ms      9.10
    cloudflare     9 ms    9 ms    9 ms    10 ms   9 ms    10 ms   10 ms   9 ms    9 ms    9 ms      9.30
    google2nd      16 ms   14 ms   8 ms    17 ms   21 ms   9 ms    9 ms    23 ms   14 ms   14 ms     14.50
    google         32 ms   10 ms   9 ms    16 ms   14 ms   22 ms   9 ms    22 ms   15 ms   14 ms     16.30
    quad9          17 ms   18 ms   18 ms   19 ms   17 ms   18 ms   18 ms   17 ms   18 ms   19 ms     17.90
    cleanbrowsing  19 ms   18 ms   18 ms   18 ms   18 ms   18 ms   18 ms   18 ms   18 ms   19 ms     18.20
    opendns        8 ms    9 ms    9 ms    9 ms    24 ms   109 ms  9 ms    9 ms    8 ms    8 ms      20.20
    comodo         23 ms   22 ms   22 ms   22 ms   23 ms   22 ms   22 ms   23 ms   22 ms   23 ms     22.40
    neustar        25 ms   25 ms   25 ms   26 ms   24 ms   25 ms   25 ms   27 ms   25 ms   25 ms     25.20
    norton         25 ms   26 ms   25 ms   35 ms   25 ms   25 ms   25 ms   26 ms   25 ms   26 ms     26.30
    yandex         101 ms  91 ms   54 ms   46 ms   54 ms   72 ms   54 ms   45 ms   47 ms   55 ms     61.90
    adguard        63 ms   239 ms  71 ms   65 ms   73 ms   63 ms   66 ms   60 ms   58 ms   58 ms     81.60
Results for Yandex and AdGuard do vary a lot between runs, but are consistently worse than all the others.

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

#259

Post by f4rker »

soapdog wrote: post #120
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…

>cache is happening at ISP level and that things are fine in the live version on the real internet

great example of how the Real World works vs what consumers think

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

#260

Post by Godel_unicode »

spc476 wrote: post #244
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…

Most people are not very interested in testing how fast their local machine can talk to itself; regardless of how fast your local cache is, it will have to talk outside pretty often (for expiring TTL if nothing else).
Post reply on HN