[deleted]
DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
361–364 of 364 posts
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
People are praising CloudFlare for not bothering to log requests. Yes, well ... you get the same results by using your own DNS resolver, and you don't have to be shocked when five years later a different governing team running CloudFlare decide to reverse their stance and log everything ... But what do I know? Apparently I'm in the minority for running my own infrastructure (DNS, web, mail).
Where do you think your DNS resolver gets the answers it gives you? You're just introducing a caching layer between you and whatever external resolver you're using. The first time a machine requests a domain (and every time a TTL expires; look at CDN TTLs sometime) you are effectively talking to the internet just like everyone else.
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the article says so, but they actually measured icmp response. All major domains are in DNS cache anyway. If you look at Yandex result you see it performed very poorly. Why does it resolve popular domains so slow? The reason is it has one server and it is located in Moscow. So i would say icmp is good proxy to actual performance.
It would be a measure of ping + cache latency. That's still different than just ping. And is your point that the tested sites aren't popular in Russia? >for different popular domains (google, facebook, twitter, gmail, etc) google.com facebook.com and twitter.com are all in the top 50 sites in Russia[1]. And gmail.com is number 6000 globally[2], so it's unpopular everywhere, not just Russia. Popular sites in Russia te…
all these sites are popular in Russia, so we can presume cache latency is a constant on all tested servers. What left is a ping, packet response time.
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
The YouTube cache is probably there not to increase performance for you, but to reduce ISP cost (ISP pays for all data received from outside of their network)
That's a strange way of looking at it. ISPs take all sorts of actions to both increase performance to customers, and to reduce their costs. A competent ISP operating in good faith will execute and expand peering agreements when it makes economic sense to do so.
An ISPs #1 goal is to generate money.
When there's a competition this often equates with making customers happy so they will stick with the ISP and perhaps more will switch from competitors.
When there's no competition and customers have no choice who to use it's purely all about squeezing as much money as they can. This means raising prices for the service and reducing cost by paying less to others services even if it would reduce quality of service. The goal is to have service that's good enough to keep people still use them (I mean there is price point and/or quality that people would just not to have service at all).
If a specific action that ISP with monopoly does and it improves quality for customer that's just a coincidence.