Best DNS server.
Nick_DK
Posts: 1,590
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Need a bit of advice. Anyone suggest what the best DNS server is to use? I've been using the OpenDNS but has problems after windows updates. Google search Google DNS but I'm unsure. I don't know if there is anymore but the one Virgin are gave me isn't great.
0
Comments
Alternately try google's DNS 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4
Virgin it was Facebook was either slow or didn't load at all. Past few days with OpenDNS it's been hotmail, Xbox live anything Microsoft hasn't loaded at all.
I'll give the google one a go.
You need to eliminate other problems before you blame DNS.
I've tried different computers same problem, different routers, taking down my firewell, different brawsers, deleting my history/cache and all. Hotmail would not work as soon as I switched from Open to the Virgin worked fine and I switched back didn't work again. Same happened with Facebook but other way round. Odd I know friends with the same package and no problems at all.
There was a posting somewhere regarding the youtube stuttering that virgin media are having ongoing peering issues. This could be effecting opendns connectivity as well
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/
comodo firewall and avg antivirus both allow use of their own dns servers if u install.
http://theos.in/windows-xp/free-fast-public-dns-server-list/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/16/virgin_media_no_end_to_peering_woe/
thanks, I remember reading it earlier today. Couldn't remember where. But no mention of this on the VM support forum.
... or 4.2.2.2 ...
EDIT: no it belongs to level 3. http://www.tummy.com/Community/Articles/famous-dns-server/
Google DNS servers are ok if you live in the US but if you live outside as you do in the uk use UK DNS servers. Using google DNS would involve many hops to get to their servers and may slow down the internet connection so will not be beneficial to you stick with virgins DNS for time being.
I do not think it is DNS issue, please try a system restore to a date before the windows updates were installed and the problems started.
Let us know whether it improves things.
Sometimes alternative DNS servers can be slightly faster, but usually it's not noticeable. If you want added value services like per-category blocking or phishing protection then there are services out there which would be worth the very slight trade off in speed which won't be noticeable in most cases.
Nonesense.
DNS happens in the blink of an eye. The only issues are if the DNS servers you are using are overloaded or non-functional.
Using Google's as opposed to your ISP's should make no discernable difference, providing they are all functioning normally.
I am not saying it will slow down to a crawl but that can be possible depending how overloaded any hops are or functionality is.
You would not expect to connect faster or equal speed from UK to USA than a UK to UK DNS server i think not i am sorry.
If the distances and hops are greater then it may be more discernable.
DNS shouldn't take more then couple of hundred milliseconds at worst. Compared to time it takes to actually to download data, it should not cause a problem. Don't forget that once an address has been looked up it will be cached by your PC anyway.
if you type ipconfig /displaydns at a command prompt to view what your PC has cached
If I ping 8.8.8.8 it's 39 to 50 ms and my ISP it's between 15 and 35 ms.
So my local ISPs severs, which are close to me from a network point of view are at least twice as fast.
However there's a thousand ms in 1 second, so we're only talking about fractions of a second, it's not really possible to notice it.
Joined Sky in Feb and left it to default, never crossed my mind to change it to anything else cos it works.
Agree once an ip address is looked up it is cached.
I use my ISP DNS servers, but did try googles DNS and noticed higher latency and jitter resulting in webpages taking longer to load and bandwidth reduction thru speedtesting and download speed reductions.
When i go back to my ISP DNS servers everything is fine no lag.
Doing tracerts to googles DNS servers will show the time taken over each hop although milli seconds can have an affect to some degree.
So if you use DNS servers further afield you will get worse results.
So for OP it will be best to use Virgin's DNS servers and the problem may lay elsewhere.
I absolutely would expect there to be no discernable difference, regardless of location, unless, as I say, one of the servers is not performing correctly.
You are getting hung up on physical distances. IP packets don't care about distance.
BIB not possible. the DNS only resolves the domain. once you have the IP address your connection is direct to the server. DNS does not enter in to it.
in the nicest possible way having differing opinions is not what is happening. if you said you wore red shoes once and you noticed it rained more i would treat it exactly the same as you saying changing your dns affected your throughput.
that is to say i would acknowledge that you think it's true, it may have been anecdotally true, but the fact remains that their is no causal link, wearing red shoes does not make it rain.
everything else is very possible. pages could take longer to load for example. a page like this would not only require a look up of digitalspy.co.uk, but the cdn, and ad providers there could be a dozen look ups required.
So yes anecdotally true.
I wonder why advice to local DNS servers if not using ISP DNS servers is given if it does not matter across the internet if there is not anything in it.
Thanks for your feedback it is interesting i have spoke to others in the business who agree it is best to use local DNS servers for such reasons i have mentioned.
Thanks for agreeing on the last point and gives credence to what i have said.
So differing opinions are always going to be there it has been interesting in what you think.