FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-20-2012, 08:14 PM
Mick
 
Default Best caching dns server?

On Saturday 19 May 2012 13:09:45 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On May 19, 2012 6:46 PM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Willie Matthews wrote:
> [le snip]
>
> > > You should really try changing you DNS server to some faster ones. I
> > > was having this same problem with my ISP or DSL modem with built in
> > > router taking a long time. I changed my DNS servers to Google DNS
> > > Servers (8.8.4.4 and 8.8.8.8) and haven't had a problem.
> > >
> > > My setup is a little different but all in all I would really suggest
> > > you try a DNS server outside of your ISP.
> >
> > I agree. My ISP is AT&T and I changed my DNS to Google's too. It is
> > very fast compared to AT&T's servers. I have had AT&T's servers not
> > respond for several seconds but Google's just seem to work.
>
> Here's the result of a test comparing the performance of public DNS servers
>
>
> http://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/public-dns-resolver-showdown
>
> Despite what the linked article said, in my experience, Level 3
> (4.2.2.[1-5]) is at least as fast as Google. I guess it depends on one's
> ISP. But both of them are mucho faster (and much stabler) than my ISP's DNS
> servers.

I understand that Level 3 4.2.2.2 is not a public DNS server:

http://www.tummy.com/Community/Articles/famous-dns-server/


If my recent experience is correct (when I was trying to set up proxychains)
connections to it are often dropped or at least throttled.

--
Regards,
Mick
 
Old 05-21-2012, 12:42 AM
Pandu Poluan
 
Default Best caching dns server?

On May 21, 2012 3:19 AM, "Mick" <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> On Saturday 19 May 2012 13:09:45 Pandu Poluan wrote:

> > On May 19, 2012 6:46 PM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Willie Matthews wrote:

> > [le snip]

> >

> > > > You should really try changing you DNS server to some faster ones. I

> > > > was having this same problem with my ISP or DSL modem with built in

> > > > router taking a long time. I changed my DNS servers to Google DNS

> > > > Servers (8.8.4.4 and 8.8.8.8) and haven't had a problem.

> > > >

> > > > My setup is a little different but all in all I would really suggest

> > > > you try a DNS server outside of your ISP.

> > >

> > > I agree. *My ISP is AT&T and I changed my DNS to Google's too. *It is

> > > very fast compared to AT&T's servers. *I have had AT&T's servers not

> > > respond for several seconds but Google's just seem to work.

> >

> > Here's the result of a test comparing the performance of public DNS servers

> >

> >

> > http://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/public-dns-resolver-showdown

> >

> > Despite what the linked article said, in my experience, Level 3

> > (4.2.2.[1-5]) is at least as fast as Google. I guess it depends on one's

> > ISP. But both of them are mucho faster (and much stabler) than my ISP's DNS

> > servers.

>

> I understand that Level 3 4.2.2.2 is not a public DNS server:

>

> *http://www.tummy.com/Community/Articles/famous-dns-server/

>


Indeed.


>

> If my recent experience is correct (when I was trying to set up proxychains)

> connections to it are often dropped or at least throttled.

>


Most likely overloaded. I myself use 4.2.2.[3-5].


BTW, thanks for that link. I never knew before that http://18.62.0.96/ is a standard connectivity test ;-)


Rgds,
 
Old 05-21-2012, 12:43 AM
Nilesh Govindrajan
 
Default Best caching dns server?

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Slow connection. See my previous reply to the list. I'm using pdnsd,
>> which can persist records and has every damn feature I wanted.
>>
>
> Fair enough, but consider this:
>
> If your connection is slow, the only thing you speeded up is the DNS
> lookups. Thereafter, everything else is still as slow as it ever was.
> And if you feel the need to speed up DNS lookups then the odds are very
> good that "everything else" is too slow i.e. not exactly usable.
>
> We get this a lot from our customers too, and the advise we give them
> is to look closely at their traffic throttling. In almost every case
> all UDP traffic has had the living crap throttled out of it somewhere
> by folk that don't really think things through, severely affecting
> dns and ntp as well as AV streaming.
>
> Throttled DNS rapidly gets out of hand, IIRC the last time we did some
> measurements it only takes around 5% of dns lookups to go wonky for the
> situation to rapidly spiral out of control - when dns fails the cache
> will try a TCP lookup and that's like wading through molasses.
>
> Our advice to customers is to first unthrottle dns and ntp completely,
> give it the highest possible priority (these are extremely light
> protocols and seldom show up on the radar when you do this), and see
> how that goes.
>
> It just seems to me that you *might* be trying a very unusual solution
> for a problem that is better handled one layer lower down.
>

Strictly speaking, my connection isn't too slow. I have a transfer
rate of 64 K/s (might sound ridiculous to you, but this costs 18$/mo
here).
OpenDNS lookups from my connection take something like 300 msec+ and
Google DNS lookups around 50 msec.

I can obviously use Google DNS, but as I said earlier, OpenDNS gives
me phishing protection and other that sort of stuff.

And hence I must use a local cache.

--
Nilesh Govindarajan
http://nileshgr.com
 
Old 05-21-2012, 01:11 AM
Michael Mol
 
Default Best caching dns server?

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Nilesh Govindrajan
<contact@nileshgr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Slow connection. See my previous reply to the list. I'm using pdnsd,
>>> which can persist records and has every damn feature I wanted.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough, but consider this:
>>
>> If your connection is slow, the only thing you speeded up is the DNS
>> lookups. Thereafter, everything else is still as slow as it ever was.
>> And if you feel the need to speed up DNS lookups then the odds are very
>> good that "everything else" is too slow i.e. not exactly usable.
>>
>> We get this a lot from our customers too, and the advise we give them
>> is to look closely at their traffic throttling. In almost every case
>> all UDP traffic has had the living crap throttled out of it somewhere
>> by folk that don't really think things through, severely affecting
>> dns and ntp as well as AV streaming.
>>
>> Throttled DNS rapidly gets out of hand, IIRC the last time we did some
>> measurements it only takes around 5% of dns lookups to go wonky for the
>> situation to rapidly spiral out of control - when dns fails the cache
>> will try a TCP lookup and that's like wading through molasses.
>>
>> Our advice to customers is to first unthrottle dns and ntp completely,
>> give it the highest possible priority (these are extremely light
>> protocols and seldom show up on the radar when you do this), and see
>> how that goes.
>>
>> It just seems to me that you *might* be trying a very unusual solution
>> for a problem that is better handled one layer lower down.
>>
>
> Strictly speaking, my connection isn't too slow. I have a transfer
> rate of 64 K/s (might sound ridiculous to you, but this costs 18$/mo
> here).
> OpenDNS lookups from my connection take something like 300 msec+ and
> Google DNS lookups around 50 msec.
>
> I can obviously use Google DNS, but as I said earlier, OpenDNS gives
> me phishing protection and other that sort of stuff.
>
> And hence I must use a local cache.

Side note: Honestly, you should be using a local cache, regardless.
It'll improve performance for you, *especially* when there's any risk
of packet drops between you and the your ISP's core equipment. When I
was on a 6Mb/s-down ADSL connection, the improvement I experienced
simply from running bind9 as a recursive resolver was *massive*. I
still do so, even though I'm now on a pretty reliable cable
connection.


--
:wq
 
Old 05-21-2012, 04:40 PM
Tanstaafl
 
Default Best caching dns server?

On 2012-05-19 8:09 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

But stay away from OpenDNS like the plague. They are known to perform
false resolve, especially if the domain being resolved does not exist.


Simple to disable, been using OpenDNS for many years, no problems
whatsoever...
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:08 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org