Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On Behalf > Of Richard Pieri > > > False. Typically, ISP's DNS servers get a lot more traffic than one > > you run yourself at home, so cached answers for sites that you visit > > infrequently tend to stay cached, whereas your home server may need to > > do a full look-up every time you visit. As a result, for infrequently > > used sites, your ISP's DNS servers will very often be faster. It's > > Faster by a whole half a second, give or take, for the first lookup only. Then I find this extra half a second or so ... is often enough the factor which causes timeout versus non timeout. Or else ... perhaps the timeout is unrelated to the half second, and simply related to "first lookup." In any event ... I do see a higher occurrence of timeout using low-traffic DNS servers, all of which I built the same. Whenever it happens, the solution is simple. Retry the query. But that's not always simple, since sometimes my laptop has now cached the timeout response, and doesn't resend the query. So I have to "net stop dnscache" or "ipconfig /flushdns" or (god forbid) reboot OSX, and then retry. I second the idea that heavy traffic DNS servers perform better due to caching. When I run namebench, I often find my LAN dns server isn't the fastest thing available. Because it only services my LAN.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |