General Anyone have a slow down in browsing - Page 2

Kushan · 23-01-2013, 18:15

There's no harm in using Virgin's DNS as the primary with Google or OpenDNS as the secondary. That way, you'll get the best of both.

Virgin's DNS servers are 194.168.4.100 and 194.168.8.100.

By all rights, Virgin's SHOULD be the fastest, after all their hosted on Virgin's own network whereas the others will at best be at a datacentre somewhere near you but still outside of Virgin's network. However, Virgin's DNS has gone down more than once in the last few years (I believe there was a DNS outage about 6 or 8 months ago) so it's definitely worth using an alternative as a backup.

qasdfdsaq · 23-01-2013, 18:17

If you think Virgin's DNS is bad, try Be's.

Even in the most recent OFCOM reports VM's DNS was near the top in speed, though also near the top in failures.

As they say in the industry, fast, cheap, reliable. Pick any two.

craigj2k12 · 23-01-2013, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushan

There's no harm in using Virgin's DNS as the primary with Google or OpenDNS as the secondary. That way, you'll get the best of both.

eh?

Qtx · 23-01-2013, 18:20

Yeah it will only use the secondary if the primary fails to respond in x amount of time.

Kushan · 23-01-2013, 18:23

That's pretty much what I was talking about. The speed of Virgin's with the reliability of someone else's. Essentially it would rule out a DNS failure as being an issue for you, ever. I haven't had a DNS failure affect me for a long, long time now.

Dai · 23-01-2013, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenry

anyone got a link to that DNS tester? the proggy that runs all DNS servers to show which comes back to the best for 'x' user

That'll probably be Steve Gibson's tester.
http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm

Qtx · 23-01-2013, 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Virgin's DNS are on average usually the fastest, or at worst, second fastest. That said, when they have problems they have big problems.

Not my experience in 2+ years of testing so maybe area makes a difference too.

As for DNS testing, I can recommend this one (although it hasn't been updated in a while): http://code.google.com/p/namebench/

qasdfdsaq · 23-01-2013, 19:25

Yes well, OFCOM has a bigger sample than... you

Qtx · 23-01-2013, 19:44

As I said, maybe location made a difference to my test results. I ran the DNS tests all from the same area. Outside DNS options always came back with faster resolutions than virgins own, often by quite some margin. Something I would never had expected so it interested me enough to keep testing.

Changing my DNS servers away from virgins increased browsing speed noticeably so I often suggest that to others too.

Chrysalis · 24-01-2013, 02:22

personally I have never had lag issues with VM's dns servers.

Also using google's dns you wont get optimised CDN servers for VM.

But with that said I have found isp supplied dns servers to ignore low ttl's so try to avoid using them. Also if isp cache servers get overloaded such as youtube then using VM dns servers can be a hinderence. So its far from clearcut.

Qtx · 24-01-2013, 02:40

In an ideal world you wouldn't have to use a DNS other than your isps.

Currently using OpenDNS with DNSCrypt and even with the client to dns server encryption, response times are fast.

fugu · 24-01-2013, 03:27

I've been having a few problems with some site loading very slow, I use opendns. A site ive noticed which is very slow at the moment is http://imgur.com guess its a routing issue as other connections are fine.

dave.m · 24-01-2013, 11:23

I've switched to 156.154.70.1, 156.154.71.1 which belong to DNS Advantage. They were the next fastest (after VM) when running DNSbench.

qasdfdsaq · 24-01-2013, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Also using google's dns you wont get optimised CDN servers for VM.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Kushan · 24-01-2013, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

You say that like it's a bad thing...

I don't know if this is specifically what Chrysalis was referring to, but if he means large CDN's like Akamai, then it shouldn't be much of an issue:

https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq#cdn

Quote:

Google Public DNS has deployed its servers all over the world. In particular, users in Europe should be directed to CDN content servers in Europe, users in Asia should be directed to CDN servers in Asia, and users in the eastern, central and western U.S. should be directed to CDN servers in those respective regions.

There may be some discrepancies still, such as getting a CDN from Europe where they may actually have one in the UK itself, it won't be as bad as some people think.