4 ms·

As you hinted at (i think this is where you were going with it), as our caches get nice and toasty the latency should start to come down a bit. Then as we add m

As you hinted at (i think this is where you were going with it), as our caches get nice and toasty the latency should start to come down a bit. Then as we add more nodes to the anycast cloud, that will also help. Finnally as we continue to tune our resolvers and infrastructure we should again bring latency down. I will say this, being compared against google is a very high bar to clear! Our focus will always be on trying to give the end users the best experience we can performance, security, and privacy wise. (not easy, but we will try)

exikyut 9y ago
Thanks for the honesty. Question: I'm in Sydney, Australia, aka the home of the most expensive bandwidth/peering in the world, IIUC :) When I initially pinged 9.9.9.9 (I read "Quad9" and, despite having _just_ woken up, make sense of the nice name) it didn't work. Okay... And theennnn: $ ping 9.9.9.9 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=5006 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=4006 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=3006 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=2007 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=155 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=154 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=154 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=157 ms [a bunch of skipped lines w/ 155ms avg, 252ms peak] ^C --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 33 packets transmitted, 27 received, 18% packet loss, time 32027ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 154.626/655.770/5006.544/1264.522 ms, pipe 6 Ahahaha nope that's not going to work for my primary DNS server. Not at this point. For reference: $ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=6.92 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=7.22 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=7.17 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=6.69 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=7.78 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=6.94 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=7.01 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=6.77 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=7.40 ms ^C --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 9 received, 10% packet loss, time 9010ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.695/7.105/7.788/0.318 ms This is a very cool service though and I wish you the best (and hope you get enough resources thrown at you to make a real difference!). Apparently someone else who tried to email you has found that your email address bounces. I'd like to keep in touch in case I can help with further testing. I also wonder if and how I could get further involved with this - global-scale networking is a very interesting performance optimization target, the kind of thing I find really interesting.
- lokedhs 9y ago
  From Singapore: $ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=2.04 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.96 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=2.10 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=1.99 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=1.97 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 7 received, 0% packet loss, time 6016ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.965/2.063/2.185/0.099 ms $ ping 9.9.9.9 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=2.23 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=2.28 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.97 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=2.05 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=2.22 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=1.93 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=2.08 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=2.17 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=10 ttl=60 time=2.05 ms ^C --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9018ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.939/2.121/2.289/0.115 ms It's possible that their APAC mirror is in Singapore.
  - josh64 9y ago
    From Perth, Western Australia: $ ping 9.9.9.9 -c 10 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=1.014 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1.038 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=1.023 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=0.918 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=0.968 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=1.121 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=0.946 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=0.978 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=1.001 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=1.140 ms --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.918/1.015/1.140/0.067 ms
kartickv 9y ago
This is a great idea, and much less intrusive than antivirus software, app stores, or security prompts. Please make it faster from Bangalore, and I'll switch. Google DNS takes 18ms, and yours, 47.

exikyut 9y ago

Thanks for the honesty. Question: I'm in Sydney, Australia, aka the home of the most expensive bandwidth/peering in the world, IIUC :) When I initially pinged 9.9.9.9 (I read "Quad9" and, despite having _just_ woken up, make sense of the nice name) it didn't work. Okay... And theennnn: $ ping 9.9.9.9 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=5006 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=4006 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=3006 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=2007 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=155 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=154 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=154 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=157 ms [a bunch of skipped lines w/ 155ms avg, 252ms peak] ^C --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 33 packets transmitted, 27 received, 18% packet loss, time 32027ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 154.626/655.770/5006.544/1264.522 ms, pipe 6 Ahahaha nope that's not going to work for my primary DNS server. Not at this point. For reference: $ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=6.92 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=7.22 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=7.17 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=6.69 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=7.78 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=6.94 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=7.01 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=6.77 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=7.40 ms ^C --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 9 received, 10% packet loss, time 9010ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.695/7.105/7.788/0.318 ms This is a very cool service though and I wish you the best (and hope you get enough resources thrown at you to make a real difference!). Apparently someone else who tried to email you has found that your email address bounces. I'd like to keep in touch in case I can help with further testing. I also wonder if and how I could get further involved with this - global-scale networking is a very interesting performance optimization target, the kind of thing I find really interesting.

lokedhs 9y ago
From Singapore: $ ping 8.8.8.8 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=2.04 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.96 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=2.10 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=1.99 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=1.97 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 7 received, 0% packet loss, time 6016ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.965/2.063/2.185/0.099 ms $ ping 9.9.9.9 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=2.23 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=2.18 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=2.28 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.97 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=2.05 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=2.22 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=1.93 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=2.08 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=2.17 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=10 ttl=60 time=2.05 ms ^C --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9018ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.939/2.121/2.289/0.115 ms It's possible that their APAC mirror is in Singapore.
- josh64 9y ago
  From Perth, Western Australia: $ ping 9.9.9.9 -c 10 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=1.014 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1.038 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=1.023 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=0.918 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=0.968 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=1.121 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=0.946 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=0.978 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=1.001 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=1.140 ms --- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.918/1.015/1.140/0.067 ms

kartickv 9y ago

This is a great idea, and much less intrusive than antivirus software, app stores, or security prompts. Please make it faster from Bangalore, and I'll switch. Google DNS takes 18ms, and yours, 47.