5 ms·

This is what a quick comparison looks like from NYC (in ms): Level 3 Google OpenDNS lifehacker.com 21 22 19 face

• deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
• ashleyw 17y ago
  Level 3 lifehacker.com 29ms Google lifehacker.com 20ms OpenDNS lifehacker.com 15ms Level 3 facebook.com 94ms Google facebook.com 20ms OpenDNS facebook.com 18ms Level 3 manu-j.com 32ms Google manu-j.com 46ms OpenDNS manu-j.com 14ms Level 3 reddit.com 30ms Google reddit.com 22ms OpenDNS reddit.com 16ms Level 3 tb4.fr 100ms Google tb4.fr 21ms OpenDNS tb4.fr 14ms Level 3 bbc.co.uk 132ms Google bbc.co.uk 21ms OpenDNS bbc.co.uk 15ms Nottinghamshire, UK. OpenDNS a clear winner…
  • edu 17y ago
    Madrid, Spain. Level 3 lifehacker.com 355 msec Google lifehacker.com 37 msec OpenDNS lifehacker.com 30 msec Level 3 facebook.com 46 msec Google facebook.com 40 msec OpenDNS facebook.com 32 msec Level 3 manu-j.com 196 msec Google manu-j.com 37 msec OpenDNS manu-j.com 32 msec Level 3 reddit.com 44 msec Google reddit.com 60 msec OpenDNS reddit.com 29 msec Level 3 tb4.fr 89 msec Google tb4.fr 36 msec OpenDNS tb4.fr 31 msec Level 3 bbc.co.uk 47 msec Google bbc.co.uk 37 msec OpenDNS bbc.co.uk 30 msec OpenDNS wins
• boundlessdreamz 17y ago
  I'm updating the post (http://www.manu-j.com/blog/opendns-alternative-google-dns-rocks/403/ http://www.manu-j.com/blog/opendns-alternative-google-dns-ro...) as results keep coming in (India, Italy, NYC, Houston). From the looks of it, google is the best for international users and Level 3 (4.2.2.2) or openDNS for americans.
• deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
• Goladus 17y ago
  Doing a single query for each domain isn't entirely fair. $ dig tb4.fr @208.67.222.222 | grep Query ;; Query time: 274 msec $ dig tb4.fr @208.67.222.222 | grep Query ;; Query time: 9 msec $ dig tb4.fr @208.67.222.222 | grep Query ;; Query time: 9 msec $ dig tb4.fr @208.67.222.222 | grep Query ;; Query time: 36 msec Also, query time only tells you how long the server took to respond, and doesn't include network latency.
  • pmjordan 17y ago
    Obviously subsequent queries are going to be faster - at that point it's cached. That's the point of aggressive/speculative caching: it's so the first (and in practice this will be your only) query is faster. If you want to accurately average across multiple measurements, you need to space those measurements hours or days apart.
    • Goladus 17y ago
      What you really want to do is log performance under real conditions over an extended period of time and then evaluate the results. Given that the differences in query time between various DNS solutions are significant but minor, you will almost certainly find differences in performance that you hadn't thought about.
• barrkel 17y ago
  From London: Level 3 Google OpenDNS lifehacker.com 35 29 26 facebook.com 31 45 18 manu-j.com 30 41 38 reddit.com 42 350 17 tb4.fr 36 22 25 bbc.co.uk 45 39 26 OpenDNS has servers here in London, so they put up a fairly good showing. And obviously there's some jitter - the 350ms reddit result is an anomaly - but a few other runs turned up 216ms and 378ms - must be something odd about it.
• youngian 17y ago
  Fascinating. It's interesting to see that their times aren't always the fastest, but they seem able to keep responses speedy on the sites the other two struggle with (bbc and tb4). Maybe that's the prefetching at work?
• Periodic 17y ago
  It's a bit hard to do the math in bash, but you'd also probably want to determine the mean and standard deviation for a population of checks (at least 10 or so). You could calculate it across a lot of domains, or calculate it with a lot of checks to one server.