O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > Google DNS versus ours

reply to derekm

Re: Google DNS versus ours

yeah but that doesn't lead to better performance.. you want records that are accurate to stay cached so their response is fast.. having to go query the auth dns server where the records are hosted is the part that takes the longest...

sometimes this is why larger dns servers may perform better since they have more queries cached by virtue of simply having more people use it... in that way they dont need to delay while it fetches the record, somebody else has already done that in some cases so to you it appears quicker. typically that's where people might argue that its better.

at our size now though I'd say that's fairly moot but to me that's the only real legitimate thing one could say.. the more users use our servers.. the less of an issue that is too..
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

I caught this thread and decided to re-run namebench...a while back I was having some trouble and switched everything over to Google DNS. Today's test results:

Fastest: TekSavvy
2nd: UltraDNS (31% slower than TSI)
3rd: Primus (35% slower)

Other notables...OpenDNS was 37% slower, Google DNS was 48% slower.

I've switched back to TekSavvy's servers as a result, so far working fine.

reply to TSI Marc
I'll switch back to the TSI servers and see how they perform now...

reply to TSI Gabe
Bench tested TSI servers today and they blow the list away. Wow!

We still have one server left to port over, so it's still technically not at it's best yet.

Do we get to find out which ones have been switched over so we can use the new ones? Or does it not matter (I can never fully wrap my head around DNS architecture)?

reply to TSI Marc
hmm..i get much worse performance with teksavvy DNS than with google :
using GRC nameserver benchmark :

206.248.142.222 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
- Cached Name | 0.000 | 0.016 | 0.081 | 0.021 | 100.0 |
- Uncached Name | 0.055 | 0.196 | 0.514 | 0.111 | 100.0 |
- DotCom Lookup | 0.077 | 0.163 | 0.272 | 0.052 | 98.0 |
------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

vs

8.8.8.8 | Min | Avg | Max |Std.Dev|Reliab%|
----------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
+ Cached Name | 0.000 | 0.019 | 0.082 | 0.023 | 100.0 |
+ Uncached Name | 0.047 | 0.165 | 0.440 | 0.101 | 100.0 |
+ DotCom Lookup | 0.048 | 0.166 | 0.283 | 0.060 | 100.0 |
------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

reply to TSI Marc

yep. that's sort of how this is.. you kind of have to find a good balance based on the load that's on our servers.. there's no one size fits all kind of solution.

thanks for the input.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

reply to fluffybunny
Much worse?

the Cached avg response time is lower for us and the std deviation is also lower.

The uncached is faster for Google by 9ms but still something seems odd with this report as the overall response times are much higher than what I would normally expect on a normal Internet Connection.

I don't know GRC that well...it runs on Windows it looks like
--
TSI Gabe - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )

Alright, all servers are in production now

»tinyurl.com/9z899t3

Comparing our servers, 206.248.154.22 and 206.248.154.170 to OpenDNS and Google

And the clear winner is us
--
TSI Gabe - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )

I should probably add that this test is being run from my house from a normal DSL connection, this isn't something that's being run right next to the server that would yield an unfair advantage.

Here on the we(s)t coast, Google's DNS is the clear winner.

dig teksavvy.com @8.8.8.8
shows a query time of 25 msec.

whereas,

dig teksavvy.com @206.248.142.222
shows a query time of 74 msec

That's because Vancouver has separate DNS servers.

You need to use 76.10.191.198 & 199

reply to TSI Gabe
Whats all this talk about 206.248.142.222?...

Is this a new DNS that's going to take over 206.248.154.22
and 206.248.154.170 ?

The graphs you indicate are talking about this DNS that isn't being propogated in the DHCP settings...

Perhaps that's why it runs better, lower load overall?...some special TSI only DNS? ....conspiracy theories abound.

No that's just one of the DNS Servers that's behind the cluster of DNS servers...please stop testing against it because it was just for testing...

reply to TSI Marc

reply to TSI Gabe
Not sure if this an issue with this upgrade or something else, but going to »www.telusmobility.com/ gives me
Access Denied by intermediary. Domain not recognized.

Doing a google search on that error seems to lead back to a DNS problem

reply to TSI Gabe
works on my rig using tsi dns