Maven (famous) to Programmer [email protected] • 9 months agoSome Valentine's Loveimagemessage-square32arrow-up1368arrow-down133
arrow-up1335arrow-down1imageSome Valentine's LoveMaven (famous) to Programmer [email protected] • 9 months agomessage-square32
minus-squareEager EaglelinkEnglish14•9 months ago9.9.9.9 has twice the latency for me. Why pick quad9 over, say, 1.1.1.2?
minus-square@FutileRecipelink0•9 months agoTwice the latency for DNS results? Care to give concrete examples? DNS is usually very fast. Twice as long as very fast is still pretty quick, in my opinion.
minus-squareEager EaglelinkEnglish2•edit-29 months agoI’m always on VPN, so latencies add up. dig +stats @1.1.1.1 www.google.com | grep '[\d]+ msec' gives me 10-20ms using a nearby vpn server dig +stats @9.9.9.9 www.google.com | grep '[\d]+ msec' gets me 30-50 ms, and not rarely >100ms.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•9 months agoPlus DNS caching… I do DOT or DOH (forget which, setup years ago) from my router’s local DNS server without any noticeable latency.
9.9.9.9 has twice the latency for me. Why pick quad9 over, say, 1.1.1.2?
Swiss
Twice the latency for DNS results? Care to give concrete examples? DNS is usually very fast. Twice as long as very fast is still pretty quick, in my opinion.
I’m always on VPN, so latencies add up.
dig +stats @1.1.1.1 www.google.com | grep '[\d]+ msec'gives me 10-20ms using a nearby vpn server
dig +stats @9.9.9.9 www.google.com | grep '[\d]+ msec'gets me 30-50 ms, and not rarely >100ms.
Plus DNS caching… I do DOT or DOH (forget which, setup years ago) from my router’s local DNS server without any noticeable latency.