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

291–300 of 364 posts

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

#291

Post by DavideNL »

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…

I see great differences in the top 5 fastest dns-servers on my Macbook, when running the script a couple of times with like a few minutes in between; Sometimes cloudflare is fastest, sometimes cloudflare is very slow, etc.

So the results everyone posts here are pretty useless i believe (since it's just a single test.)

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

#292

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#293

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#294

Post by chrisweekly »

DavideNL wrote: post #291
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…

I see great differences in the top 5 fastest dns-servers on my Macbook, when running the script a couple of times with like a few minutes in between; Sometimes cloudflare is fastest, sometimes cloudflare is very slow, etc. So the results everyone posts here are pretty useless i believe (since it's just a single test.)

When using WPT to benchmark network latency from a given location, a rule of thumb I adopted during my years as a webperf engineer was to repeat the test 9x. Using an odd number ensured the median run was an actual test, and 9 seemed sufficient to iron out the inevitable temporal inconsistencies, while allowing the overall test suite to finish in a reasonable time. The fastest value was sometimes more interesting / useful than the median though.

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

#295

Post by enneff »

spc476 wrote: post #263
Godel_unicode wrote: post #260

Earlier 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).

If you talk to an upstream resolver through an encrypted link (both CloudFlare and Google support DNSoverTLS and DNSoverHTTPS, at least) then you at least limit the potential privacy threats.

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

#296

Post by chrisweekly »

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…

Verizon's DNS seems to have improved, but a few years ago I ran into consistent problems resolving even the biggest / most common domains. My brief never-to-be-repeated dalliance with Comcast in 2016 was even worse.

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

#297

Post by ragequitta »

spc476 wrote: post #263
Godel_unicode wrote: post #260

Earlier 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).

Do you ever wonder if such activity (basically trying to be invisible) will put you under far more scrutiny than if you were to just 'be normal'? Thinking from the other side of it you would be a high value target to monitor as closely as possible if I were law enforcement. I know it sounds ridiculous but you may actually have more privacy (unless you're actually breaking the law) by hiding in plain sight with the rest of us.

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

#298

Post by billysielu »

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…

BT in the UK. Their DNS is so unreliable that using it isn't really an option, so it's not even in the running.

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

#299

Post by danpalmer »

mino wrote: post #198
danpalmer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, Virgin Media did this in the UK and messed it up badly. Every day at 6pm YouTube would stop working until the following morning. It appeared to work by inspecting DNS packets and replying with overrides if necessary. I didn’t like it but I could understand that. What I did not agree with was the fact that this also happened for other DNS services. Google DNS and OpenDNS both experienced the same issue, as did a…

Again, it's probably _not_ Virgin's fault or responsibility. Capacity planning is handled by Google directly. Also, I think that virtually every ISP with more than a few tens of thousands users is hosting a GGC instance nowadays (and a Netflix OpenCache, etc. etc.). Nowadays, the vast majority of the transit&peering of ISPs is not going to the Internet, but to a few racks of local caching servers managed by OTT opera…

I would suggest that the deep packet inspection is Virgin's fault. Perhaps it was Google under provisioning the CDN inside VM's network, but I would suggest that's also probably Virgin's fault in part, as they will likely have more network information available to them that may have suggested network congestion, but that was not acted upon.

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

#300

Post by ashkulz »

akarambir wrote: post #281
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 New Delhi(Airtel), India test1 test2 test3 test4 test5 test6 test7 test8 test9 test10 Average cloudflare 35 ms 58 ms 89 ms 14 ms 14 ms 42 ms 44 ms 35 ms 13 ms 29 ms 37.30 cloudflare2nd 17 ms 16 ms 39 ms 57 ms 26 ms 42 ms 42 ms 64 ms 41 ms 64 ms 40.80 google 93 ms 98 ms 184 ms 246 ms 277 ms 122 ms 97 ms 91 ms 241 ms 82 ms 153.10 google2nd 60 ms 44 ms 43 ms 363 ms 90 ms 103 ms 110 ms 210 ms 10 ms 28 ms 106.10 quad…

From Mumbai, India:

                   test1   test2   test3   test4   test5   test6   test7   test8   test9   test10  Average 
    cloudflare     3 ms    3 ms    2 ms    3 ms    3 ms    123 ms  3 ms    2 ms    3 ms    6 ms      15.10
    cloudflare2nd  3 ms    3 ms    2 ms    3 ms    3 ms    2 ms    3 ms    2 ms    2 ms    3 ms      2.60
    google         61 ms   61 ms   61 ms   61 ms   64 ms   273 ms  61 ms   64 ms   61 ms   62 ms     82.90
    google2nd      1 ms    1 ms    1 ms    1 ms    66 ms   62 ms   2 ms    64 ms   1 ms    1 ms      20.00
    quad9          124 ms  126 ms  124 ms  124 ms  124 ms  118 ms  127 ms  121 ms  125 ms  179 ms    129.20
    opendns        2 ms    2 ms    2 ms    57 ms   5 ms    261 ms  2 ms    245 ms  2 ms    2 ms      58.00
    norton         4 ms    4 ms    4 ms    5 ms    4 ms    4 ms    4 ms    4 ms    3 ms    4 ms      4.00
    cleanbrowsing  225 ms  232 ms  235 ms  214 ms  232 ms  225 ms  219 ms  245 ms  233 ms  218 ms    227.80
    yandex         136 ms  139 ms  142 ms  138 ms  140 ms  141 ms  136 ms  142 ms  142 ms  142 ms    139.80
    adguard        205 ms  205 ms  196 ms  196 ms  217 ms  211 ms  212 ms  197 ms  205 ms  211 ms    205.50
    neustar        233 ms  232 ms  236 ms  235 ms  233 ms  243 ms  246 ms  242 ms  232 ms  227 ms    235.90
    comodo         132 ms  134 ms  133 ms  133 ms  133 ms  130 ms  130 ms  130 ms  131 ms  145 ms    133.10
Post reply on HN