3 ms·
This is cool and I've seen it before but I have a hard time interpreting the results. For instance, I have a hard time believing Google's DNS is substantially s
by rajacombinator 12y ago
This is cool and I've seen it before but I have a hard time interpreting the results. For instance, I have a hard time believing Google's DNS is substantially slower than anyone else's which leads me to question all the results.
Also, and I'm hoping someone here can clear this up for me, but it's not clear to me how these results translate to actual DNS performance for my site. I only vaguely understand how the magic of the internet works but don't the DNS results get distributed throughout the network making the performance of the root servers less relevant? If I could chop 50-100ms off my TTFB by switching my DNS from Namecheap to someone else, I would definitely pay for that, but it's not clear to me.
- flipp3r 12y agoWhy would you pay more for faster DNS? Most browsers come with DNS prefretching built in, I doubt it really matters for a website.
- pixl97 12y agoBecause the first page load is what matters most.
- moe 12y agoYour DNS information should already be cached in all major ISPs DNS caches (unless you mean the first page load ever).
- corford 12y agoHow about the first subsequent load after the TTL for the previous load expires? Admittedly, not much of an issue if you're a big site with hundreds/thousands of requests a minute but it is an issue if you're a less trafficed site and have a low TTL.
- rajacombinator 12y agoDid you read what I wrote? I said I would pay if I were convinced it would lead to faster loads, but I'm not.