4 ms·
This analysis is flawed in that it assumes that the host with the closest geographical proximity should always provide the lowest network latency. Very often i
by FlyingAvatar 13y ago
This analysis is flawed in that it assumes that the host with the closest geographical proximity should always provide the lowest network latency.
Very often it does, but especially for smaller countries that do not have the same number of peering points that exist in the US or Europe, latency will appear out of whack when compared to geographical proximity.
For this test to be valid, you would need to measure the latency to the remote host from all four servers to determine if indeed the ideal route was chosen. Even then the latency may vary depending on the time of day or other network conditions.
From a practical standpoint, a simpler and more accurate metric would be to compare page load times in different geographies before and after enabling Route 53.
- nefasti 13y agoAlso there a lot of people using OpenDns, Google Dns, etc... that don't have a server on their actual country, making those request appear to be from another location.
- interurban 13y agoFrom a comment on the linked post: "Both Google DNS and OpenDNS implement the (Google-proposed) ecdn-client-subnet DNS extension, that basically forwards the higher part of the client IP to the authoritative DNS for the specific purpose of latency-based routing... I assume you're not using latency-based routing for static data (otherwise a CDN would solve it). In that case, you're out of luck because it looks like Route 53 doesn't support ecdn-client-subnet"
- dfc 13y agoA lot of people/daemons do not support edns-subnet. Sadly I recently found out that pdns-recursor does not do edns-subnet. Id love to hear people's recommendations for caching dns servers that supports edns-subnet