| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/13 |
| 2009/12/3-26 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:53563 Activity:nil |
12/2 Google launches its own DNS. Google Public DNS:
http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns
8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4
Kick ass!
\_ http://radoff.com/blog/2009/12/07/google-dns-benchmarking-and-rationale
\_ I get 1.7ms pings to 4.2.2.2 and 23ms pings to 8.8.8.8.
BBN Planet/GTE Internetworking/Verizon is 10x faster.
\_ Um, my ping to 4.2.2.4 and OpenDNS are 1/2 of what I
get from ping to GoogleDNS. I'm not impressed so far.
\_ what PP said. also I get much better ping to http://www.google.com
than this. "From your browser, type in a fixed IP address. You
can use <DEAD>18.62.1.6<DEAD> (which points to the website
<DEAD>eecs.mit.edu<DEAD> as the URL*." -- what, google couldn't
come up with its own non-http-virtualhosted IP anywhere for
testing?
\_ It's a day later and the ping rate to Google
is about 1/2 of what it was before. Not bad Google,
you're learning. Keep it up.
\_ not an enormous deal, dns should cache a little locally
\_ I just tried "host -v <host> (4.2.2.4|8.8.8.8)" on
various hosts. It is clear that Google is a lot slower.
Sorry, no deal. Bad Google, bad boy.
\_ give Google a little time to cache the world
/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html
\_ here:
http://www.wipmania.com/ping/cache/8.8.8.8/?c=f4335d8443172 |
| 7/13 |
|
| code.google.com/speed/public-dns -> code.google.com/speed/public-dns/ The DNS protocol is an important part of the web's infrastructure, serving as the Internet's phone book: every time you visit a website, your computer performs a DNS lookup. Complex pages often require multiple DNS lookups before they start loading, so your computer may be performing hundreds of lookups a day. |
| radoff.com/blog/2009/12/07/google-dns-benchmarking-and-rationale -> radoff.com/blog/2009/12/07/google-dns-benchmarking-and-rationale/ For those that don't know, that stands for Domain Name Server, one of the central services that makes the Internet work. com" and translates it to the numeric IP address, which allows you to connect to services by name. Since they'll have access to enormous amounts of information on every Internet service people are connecting to, including non-Web services, they'll have a map more accurate than Alexa, Comscore, etc. I'm sure that privacy-mavens would find that a bit alarming. The stated goal is that they want to make using the Internet faster and more secure. Making it faster is important to a larger number of companies who depend on fast response-times to increase revenue. Greg Linden has reported that: In A/B tests, we tried delaying the page in increments of 100 milliseconds and found that even very small delays would result in substantial and costly drops in revenue. Now, we don't know how much this would impact individual websites, because DNS is something you only need to check once--not for every page you visit (because your computer caches DNS data once you've visited a site). It might help smaller sites (who you haven't cached) appear faster when you click on random links from a Google search results page. Unfortuantely for Google, I found that: * My existing DNS provider (offered as part of my Verizon FIOS service) is pretty damn fast -- faster, in fact, than Google and every other public DNS server that the benchmarking tool makes available. phone companies take a lot of criticism, but in this case, Verizon should be congratulated. Verizon FIOS and other DNS providers Results of Google DNS vs. Too bad I can't calculate on the fly which will be faster and use that one. A commenter on Slashdot mentioned that using Google is a decent way to get around RCN throttling, which I have hit occasionally, so I'm going to give that a shot. December 7, 2009 at 11:54 am Knocking Verizon, or any Baby Bell, about network *connectivity* is futile. They have the world's best infrastructure at this scale, and it's rock-solid, over-engineered in many spots. A nice gift from AT&T in 1984, that still keeps on giving... December 7, 2009 at 11:55 am This benchmark doesn't mean anything for the rest of us. Verizon FIOS's DNS Server probably performed well for you because they assigned you a DNS server that's very close to you. It's not a real indication that Verizon did anything better than any other ISP. There are plenty of non-performance reasons why Google DNS might be fantastic. More instructive are the 29 other DNS providers (not including Verizon's) which also performed better for me. As with anything on the Internet, your mileage may vary! December 7, 2009 at 12:16 pm Another important element is reliability. Having a super fast DNS server from your ISP does you no good if it occasionally goes down or gets overloaded. December 7, 2009 at 12:27 pm @Bob: actually it can be fine to have a mostly-reliable DNS server as your first choice and a slower but more reliable on as a second choice (in your network settings or router configuration you can usually specify at least 2, often more, in descending order of preference). December 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm all fine and good be now I don't have to screw with RoadRunner doing their own DNS-redirect when or if a site is slow to respond. This is something very few regular' users even know about so they would not know how to disable it. And even if they did disable it, I've had it reset back to ON without any notice or indication it occurred. Google has a better _brand_ than OpenDNS so it might be easier to get some people off their ISP DNS. December 7, 2009 at 1:28 pm I should point out that Google's DNS offering (any opendns, probably others) is using anycast routing. So your performance is going to be depend largely on your geographic region, how many other people in your region are using the service, how close you are physically to the particular server you're accessing, how close the servers are to you in a network topology sense, etc. Because of this, these results should not be published as definitive stats about the speed of google's public DNS offering and other public DNS offerings. December 7, 2009 at 1:37 pm This is awesome testing data, though I would have to agree with the poster above that the google DNS servers may be farther away from you network wise and hence slower. It would be interesting to be able to break down how much of the slowness is due to server processing time and how much of it is due to network latency. December 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm For international users (I'm from Brazil), the new Google DNS is awesome. There are no such services around here and we need to rely on our ISPs DNS servers, which can't be trusted to be updated and with security holes fixed. I used OpenDNS, but the response times were around 140ms, which is noticeably slower than my own ISPs DNS servers. Now it seems Google has local DNS servers in Brazil, so I get 20-30ms response times which is much better. December 7, 2009 at 2:36 pm I agree that Comcast's DNS is abysmal, but oddly enough faster then Open DNS in the DC Metro area. I have tried and compared Comcast to Open DNS at multiple locations on various machines and noticed a significant lag with OpenDNS. Not sure why other then Comcast is doing something screwy. December 7, 2009 at 2:43 pm It's about 100ms slower than my ISP name servers but like an american friend told me, it's probably meant for people with dumb ISP's who redirect them to ad-sites. December 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm There's one other factor here that I think Google is counting on. This is the first time I've remembered a DNS server's address after a weekend without doing a lot of memorizing or thinking about it. It's so easy I wonder how many admins will find themselves typing that rote instead of their ISP's address? December 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm Well, if nothing else, Telstra users here in Australia will appreciate it, they can bypass Telstra nxdomain breaking advertising heavy service and use one that will nxdomain when a domain is nxed. December 7, 2009 at 6:22 pm With me its not about DNS and craptastic, but their poor QoS on the line staying up. Have played with it for years, and without question Verizon FIOS is sooooo much better, problem is they are not available where I moved. Cable and thus ISP monopoly should be torn down, and thus as much as I don't care for Google fingers in my pie and holes, they are better than my ISP. December 8, 2009 at 12:12 am @Brandon, you can reproduce my test by downloading the tool from the original post. All of the DNS providers are preloaded with the tool (except that I added my FIOS DNS server, and Google's DNS server to the defaults). December 8, 2009 at 12:25 am At least Google DNS doesn't break IPV6 web browsing support when its used as OpenDNS does. I'd rather support a slightly slower DNS (google DNS), then to ever promote a DNS provider who provides "Premium DNS" (as OpenDNS calls themselves), and being the only DNS provider on the planet which actually discourages people from migrating to newer standards. Whilst I haven't given Google DNS a try yet (because I'm in Aus), I do plan to do so. All I know though, is that until OpenDNS pulls their heads out of the ground, I regret that I ever recommended them to clients. December 8, 2009 at 12:30 am Btw, I just pinged OpenDNS and Google DNS, and here in Australia, Google DNS is quicker (not sure about DNS response though). The DNS servers for my ISP obviously respond quicker, but I trust google more than optus.. December 8, 2009 at 5:48 pm Of course there's always this: It's a plot. Google just wants us to using their DNS so they can model traffic according to their nefarious plans (bwah ha ha). December 9, 2009 at 10:20 am I don't see any reports from people with AT&T service in their home (DSL or Uverse), Also would using Google on an iPhone make much difference? |
| www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-privacy-if_n_383105.html A CNBC interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt suggests the search giant Google shouldn't get off easy, and users should be wary of what Google knows about them -- and with whom they can share that information. CNBC's Mario Bartiromo asked CEO Schmidt in her December 3, 2009 interview: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's. Schmidt tells Baritoromo: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. He expands on his answer, adding that the your information could be made available not only to curious searchers or prying friends, but also to the authorities, and that there's little recourse for people worried about unintentionally "oversharing" online: But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. guide for law enforcement officials, which explains how they can obtain consumer data, highlights the type of information internet companies may have about their users -- and can share with the authorities. Silicon Alley Insider notes, For example, Yahoo's document helpfully alerts law enforcement that if they'd like to read a user's instant messanger logs, they better ask within 45 days and come bearing a 2703 order. That is, unless there's "imminent danger of death or serious physical injury." Eric Schmidt Yahoo, Verizon, Sprint, and others have recently come under fire for sharing customer data with the authorities, and admitting to "spying" abilities that would "shock" and "confuse" customers. Yahoo, Verizon, Sprint, and others have recently come under fire for sharing customer data with the authorities, and admitting to "spying" abilities that would "shock" and "confuse" customers. Google Wave is a neat idea and it will attract people to use it - as designed, but again, if they record everything Google is amassing vast amounts of information, and it is linked to all the people who use this. This could catch terrorists, but it also can allow others to find out whatever you are doing or have done. The Chinese, for example could buy information from Google, and blackball people here they do not like. Until Google addresses privacy issues I would stqay away, no matter how attractive they make their products appear. photo There is no telling what Google may or is using all this information for. They are definately using it for markeing purposes, but the culture at Google is global, and many of the people are from foreign countries. Herr Schmidt reminds me of the NAZI's that told people that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of". Just think of all the ways Google might use this information, and who would know? There is no excuse for retaining all search information people enter, regardless of whether or not they are logged into Google. This is unamerican, and their practices should be stopped. photo For all of the concern about privacy, while you are right to be concerned about Google and the Internet in general, no one on here has given any thought to their operating system on their computer. Both Mac OSX (Apple, Inc) and Windows (Microsoft), are closed-source, proprietary systems that will not let you see 100% of the code. There's very limited access and no transparency like there is with GNU/Linux. No operating system is perfect and none are 100% secure, but some are much more-so than others because of their philosophy of design and the the implementation of it. If you are running Windows or Mac OS X, you may wish to start there with your concerns about privacy. Of late GOOGLE has come in for criticism for being not as accurate as they are expected to be. If you type your name in the search column, your works are listed and along side some fellows who have names sounding like yours but not similar to yours, are also listed. This indeed is an error that they have not been able to correct despite complaints lodged with them. In a book entitled "WE MUST HAVE NO PRICE", the writer Arun Shourie has published two GOOGLE maps of India-China border in the east. The map visible in China shows Arunachal Pradesh(Indian territory) as a part of China and the same Google showing the same area to viewers in India shows it as a part of India. Isn't it robbing Peter to pay Paul and vice-versa depending where you are located. photo If "they" find anything "they" don't approve of , they are welcome to kiss my ___. I hope only to live long enough to p i s s upon a certain former vp's grave . permalink I'm not in the US, so the Patriot Act does not apply to me. However, by Google and other companies retaining data on me it means that the US all of a sudden has the power to get all sorts of information on me that I have willfully chosen to not share with them. I deliberately choose not to visit anywhere in the USA, or that involves transiting via the USA, because I refuse to allow them to collect my fingerprints and other biometric information that the US-VISIT program requires me to give them. Other information that I choose not to share with the US authorities is freely available to them because Google - and other companies - who are USA based are retaining this information. And the answer to "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." is - could you please tell me your full medical background? That's just one single suggestion for something that is private information that I wouldn't want anyone to know, but that is legitimate. To take it a step further, if I used Google to look up information relating to a medical condition that I have been diagnosed with, I would not want other people to be privy to that information, but I don't necessarially know that to be the case here... photo It is so easy, and obvious, to come with a list of things one would want to remain private, yet by any reasonable view are not wrong: I am looking up AIDS treatments for my child who tested HIV+ I am researching where I want to invest my money, and I am extremely wealthy. My international colleagues and I use gmail to discuss the details of our soon-to-be-patented product. I might run for office, but I don't want everyone to know (just yet). I am an anonymous whistleblower for the defense department. The point is, Google's lack of privacy controls make any of the above listed activities potentially embarrassing (at best) or even life threatening (at worst). If I were involved in any of them, I would not want anyone to know, but I reject that I "shouldn't be doing it in the first place." |
| www.wipmania.com/ping/cache/8.8.8.8/?c=f4335d8443172 com 06 Dec 2009 21:12 Only users with enabled JavaScript can use these tools Enter an IP address or domain name It's not a valid IP address or domain name For Reverse DNS only IP address is allowed We do not make whois lookups for domain names Simultaneous running of traceroutes from multiple points will be available later. |
| www.google.com -> www.google.com/ Web Images Groups News Froogle^ New! Google Search I'm Feeling Lucky Advanced Search Preferences Language Tools Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google Graduating? Come work with us. |