TSI GabeRouter of Packets Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Gatineau, QC |
to fluffybunny
Re: Google DNS versus oursMuch 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 |
TSI Gabe
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 3:41 pm
Alright, all servers are in production now » tinyurl.com/9z899t3Comparing our servers, 206.248.154.22 and 206.248.154.170 to OpenDNS and Google And the clear winner is us |
|
|
TSI Gabe |
TSI Gabe
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 3:42 pm
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. |
|
jstory join:2011-02-05 New Westminster, BC |
jstory
Member
2012-Oct-11 3:56 pm
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 |
|
TSI GabeRouter of Packets Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Gatineau, QC |
TSI Gabe
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 4:03 pm
That's because Vancouver has separate DNS servers.
You need to use 76.10.191.198 & 199 |
|
nitzguy Premium Member join:2002-07-11 Sudbury, ON |
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. |
|
TSI GabeRouter of Packets Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Gatineau, QC |
TSI Gabe
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 4:06 pm
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... |
|
1 edit |
to TSI Marc
said by mlord:If there was a good way to let TSI know about it (specific site lookup failing), we'd probably do it. There is - and we have told them. Many times. All we need is for someone from TSI to spend the time to diagnose. And yes, it does take time, as a good class of the problems with TSI's DNS servers are due to very slow DNS resolutions when the entry is not cached. If you test it when it is cached, it works great, but the initial cache is a disaster. said by TSI Marc:Like I mentioned, each time I hear somebody say our dns this or that.. I kind of scratch my head because I haven't seen a case where it was clearly our dns server at fault... Look a bit harder: » [Cable] Slow DNS resolution for site on Teksavvy» Review of TekSavvy Cable by nbinont» Teksavvy routing issues?These are all DNS issues, despite the titles. EDIT: I haven't tried the new servers yet. |
|
|
hey_me to TSI Gabe
Anon
2012-Oct-11 5:29 pm
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 |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN. |
to TSI Gabe
works on my rig using tsi dns |
|
|
to TSI Gabe
I have rarely agreed about google/openDNS being better than TSI's DNS servers. Namebench consistently showed TSI being faster, with no time-outs, etc for me. Bell's were consistently the worst (very slow, lots of time-outs, etc.).
If this means performance gets even better, I'm happy! |
|
TSI GabeRouter of Packets Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Gatineau, QC |
to nbinont
The first one, he's using 192.168.1.1 as his DNS server, not ours, hence why it's not working.
The second one...it's hard to tell, it's just a review that hasn't really been looked at to begin with.
The third one, the guy had just updated his DNS records on his own server, we forced a refresh for him as a courtesy. |
|
nitzguy Premium Member join:2002-07-11 Sudbury, ON |
to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe: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... I never tested against it to begin with . Was just curious....when I worked for a previous cable company, they had 4 DNS servers to autheticate, and it was always the 4th one that had the best results...presumably because it had the lowest load...so I set it as the primary manually.... Just was wondering if this was the case here... does .22 get more usage than .170 Gabe? |
|
|
Jon111 to TSI Gabe
Anon
2012-Oct-11 5:57 pm
to TSI Gabe
Nice results on the DNS servers.
Where are they located? Are they in different sites etc for redundancy? |
|
mlord join:2006-11-05 Kanata, ON |
to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe:The first one, he's using 192.168.1.1 as his DNS server, not ours, hence why it's not working. That's probably his router, which probably IS using TSI's server. Very standard setup, that. |
|
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON |
TSI Marc
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 6:04 pm
said by mlord:said by TSI Gabe:The first one, he's using 192.168.1.1 as his DNS server, not ours, hence why it's not working. That's probably his router, which probably IS using TSI's server. Very standard setup, that. Gabe appears to have looked that one up at the time and wrote this later in the thread: » Re: [Cable] Slow DNS resolution for site on Teksavvy |
|
AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan join:2005-02-28 Toronto CAN. |
Posted in the direct forum... no can read it... |
|
|
to mlord
said by mlord:said by TSI Gabe:The first one, he's using 192.168.1.1 as his DNS server, not ours, hence why it's not working. That's probably his router, which probably IS using TSI's server. Very standard setup, that. Yep - my router using TSI's DNS servers. Though asking TSI's DNS servers directly with dig shows the same problem. |
|
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON |
to AkFubar
oh. hahaha, that's funny. I see says the blind man!?
looks like the first and the last are actually one and the same.
if we had problems with the dns servers.. we'd have thousands of calls... just look at the rogers outtage recently.. that's what happened. |
|
TSI Marc |
to nbinont
said by nbinont:said by mlord:said by TSI Gabe:The first one, he's using 192.168.1.1 as his DNS server, not ours, hence why it's not working. That's probably his router, which probably IS using TSI's server. Very standard setup, that. Yep - my router using TSI's DNS servers. Though asking TSI's DNS servers directly with dig shows the same problem. lets take a closer look see if we can figure out what's going on. |
|
|
to AkFubar
said by AkFubar:Posted in the direct forum... no can read it... Sorry everyone - the problem occurs when the specific address is NOT in the TSI DNS cache. If I posted the site everyone here would check it out and TSI would not be able to see the effect on the first request. Hence the Direct forum post. |
|
TSI GabeRouter of Packets Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Gatineau, QC |
to TSI Marc
Are you saying this is still happening now? |
|
|
to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:said by mlord:said by TSI Gabe:The first one, he's using 192.168.1.1 as his DNS server, not ours, hence why it's not working. That's probably his router, which probably IS using TSI's server. Very standard setup, that. Gabe appears to have looked that one up at the time and wrote this later in the thread: » Re: [Cable] Slow DNS resolution for site on Teksavvy Yes, but the first time I believe the dig command was was not going to the right server: » Re: [Cable] Slow DNS resolution for site on TeksavvyAnd this problem happens regularly. but only on TSI. Very repeatable. |
|
nbinont |
to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe:Are you saying this is still happening now? Yep, for the past 8 months. Everyday |
|
TSI GabeRouter of Packets Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Gatineau, QC |
TSI Gabe
Premium Member
2012-Oct-11 6:38 pm
K...honestly this is going to be hard to reproduce now that we are running other DNS servers...I guess keep me posted if it happens again and I'll take another look. Since right now I'm able to resolve those domains just fine. |
|
jstory join:2011-02-05 New Westminster, BC |
to TSI Gabe
Just did.
Got a query response time of 76 msec and 75 msec, respectively, compared to 33 msec for 8.8.8.8.
mtr reports a ping of 13 msec, so maybe the server is just under heavy load. |
|
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON |
to nbinont
k, I've asked Gabe to look into it more closely. I'm sure it's something logical we just need to find what it is. |
|
|
to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe:K...honestly this is going to be hard to reproduce now that we are running other DNS servers...I guess keep me posted if it happens again and I'll take another look. Since right now I'm able to resolve those domains just fine. Thanks! I'll follow up and try to reproduce it. |
|
TSI Marc Premium Member join:2006-06-23 Chatham, ON |
to jstory
said by jstory:Just did.
Got a query response time of 76 msec and 75 msec, respectively, compared to 33 msec for 8.8.8.8.
mtr reports a ping of 13 msec, so maybe the server is just under heavy load. Gabe responded to you earlier. you have to use the Vancouver DNS servers since you're in BC.. That's because Vancouver has separate DNS servers. You need to use 76.10.191.198 & 199 (these servers are not yet updated though) we too can make our IPs respond no matter where you are but we just haven't done that.. there's no real need. Google has that 8.8.8.8 block anycasted.. it's a routing trick.. that make all the routers think that IP is really close but in fact there are srvers everywhere with the same IP... |
|
TP-Link Archer C7 Technicolor DCM476 Grandstream HT701
|
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:Same thing I've experienced... Me too that's why I switched to using google a couple of years ago. I'll try out the TSI ones again. |
|