Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
bunnycdn.com
Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
1–10 of 141 posts
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#2> The biggest shockers were the .info and .org domains that showed really poor performance especially in the 85 percentile range, despite being one of the oldest and well established top-level domains with millions of registered domains each
Why do I imagine this being spun into some upbeat marketing exercise for .org?
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#3ccTLDs like .ru kinda make sense being slower on a global scale because they mainly target a national audience, but a lot of the worst offenders are gTLDs where your audience can be anywhere on the planet.
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#4> For each top-level domain, our system picked a random nameserver published for each of the top-level domains and queried a random domain name that we picked for it. We then grouped the results by region and logged the data every 10 seconds.
Am I misunderstanding what they're doing or is this completely misleading? If they're only testing one randomly chosen nameserver, the results are much less likely to be a good indication of the speed of an average request for that TLD. Why not average across all of them?
Also, as they kind of suggest near the end, caching is probably good enough that this is very rarely a problem anyone needs to worry about.
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#5This is one of those things you simply don't expect to test when you're benchmarking performance. I've been trying to cut away chunks of 20-50ms on a side project I've been working on hosted on a .io domain, and I'm seriously considering switching because of this. Great article for sure. I also wonder at what point the trade off is between a vanity domain vs a more performant domain. For a CDN this makes perfect sense, but would it be better to launch with a less-notable url vs a more performant one?
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#6Would love to hear if the same applies to SEO and/or spam filters.
I have a .works domain, which looks nice, but it was a huge mistake and wish I had gone for a .com:
- people often mispell it to .work, or just generally get confused
- one customer actually couldn't receive my emails because some layer in their email stack was blocking this domain
- .work exists, and somebody else owns [name].work, which is a potential security risk...
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#7This is one of those things you simply don't expect to test when you're benchmarking performance. I've been trying to cut away chunks of 20-50ms on a side project I've been working on hosted on a .io domain, and I'm seriously considering switching because of this. Great article for sure. I also wonder at what point the trade off is between a vanity domain vs a more performant domain. For a CDN this makes perfect sens…
I humbly suggest this is not a good use of your time.
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#8Would love to hear if the same applies to SEO and/or spam filters. I have a .works domain, which looks nice, but it was a huge mistake and wish I had gone for a .com: - people often mispell it to .work, or just generally get confused - one customer actually couldn't receive my emails because some layer in their email stack was blocking this domain - .work exists, and somebody else owns [name].work, which is a potenti…
I’ve heard anecdotally that getting .xyz email delivered is much harder than .com, some servers just blanket reject. I expect this will change as the domains become more popular.
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#9This is one of those things you simply don't expect to test when you're benchmarking performance. I've been trying to cut away chunks of 20-50ms on a side project I've been working on hosted on a .io domain, and I'm seriously considering switching because of this. Great article for sure. I also wonder at what point the trade off is between a vanity domain vs a more performant domain. For a CDN this makes perfect sens…
Although I may see what the BunnyCDN is trying to get at, personally I've gotten under 10ms with .com (even w/o caching).
I find this a bit hard to believe without more people justifying or backing this work up.
So yeah, don't worry about your TLD. .io is perfectly fine and companies and people internationally use it.
Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs
#10I find this a bit hard to believe. Who's servers were you running this test on? Which regions exactly?
Is there any other sources that back up this claim?
Also interesting that .in (even though indian tld) is faster...