Comodo secure DNS vs Others.

[Guest]

[Nige_39]

A Friend of mine told me to install namebench-1.3.1-Windows So I said OK I will try it.

And after a test the results said the DNS server I'm running is slow. Which I was running Comodo Secure DNS and it said there are DNS addresses that will run much quicker. And it gave the address on top right of screen of
namebench-1.3.1

the address was 8.8.8.8 which is Google dns. setting for Preferred DNS server
 and this other address 92.31.241.21 which is my isp dns and said for that to be set for Alternate DNS server

So I wonder are those test right, and they are telling me that Comodo DNS is running slower.

I do have to say it has been running fast but of late I have noticed it slower.

[HeffeD]

Depending on where you live, SecureDNS may indeed be slower than the alternatives. In general, the closer a server is to you, the quicker the access. If the nearest SecureDNS access is hundreds of miles away, your ISP's servers are likely local, therefore quicker to respond to your requests.

That being said, a single test isn't any indication of actual speed. To get a real idea, you'd need to do multiple tests throughout the day (during peak, and off peak usage hours) for several weeks to get an average.

[Nige_39]

Thanks for that Information HeffeD. I will of course look into doing different tests are different part of the day.

But what bugs me. Each time I connect to my internet it says connected from Blackpool then it maybe Manchester, then it maybe Burnley then Warrington and so on. So when I am connected to A DNS is pointless at times due to where I'm connecting from My home area is Southport UK and I get all those different locations.

But I will just have to see.

Thanks anyway

Nige   

[w-e-v]

I made some test during different peaks.

This are the results:

Code:

INCLUDING BEST AVAILABLE REGIONAL DNS SERVICE

1st Test
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 48.6% faster than GOOGLE PUBLIC DNS
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 504.3% faster than COMODO DNS 2.0
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 137.3% faster than NORTON DNS

2nd Test
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 141.2% faster than GOOGLE PUBLIC DNS
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 641.9% faster than COMODO DNS 2.0
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 198.7% faster than NORTON DNS

3rd Test
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 296.3% faster than GOOGLE PUBLIC DNS
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 485.8% faster than COMODO DNS 2.0
Navegante/Turbonett SV is 332.7% faster than NORTON DNS

COMODO DNS 2.0 is in all cases, the slowest provider.

Code:

EXCLUDING BEST AVAILABLE REGIONAL DNS SERVICE AND USING COMODO DNS 2.0

1st Test
DynGuide is 106.9% faster than COMODO DNS 2.0

2nd Test
OpenDNS-2 is 76.0% faster than COMODO DNS 2.0

3rd Test
DynGuide is 138.3% faster than COMODO DNS 2.0

COMODO DNS 2.0 is never faster than any other provider.


With this results, I guess its worthy for COMODO to check the DNS infraestructure.
Specially if its giving problems resolving domains such as facebook.com, gmail.com, etc. (read other forum posts).

[Nige_39]

Nice test w-e-v That sure tells you that something needs to be looked into.

Anyway I will leave this open for other replies and info and fixes.

Regards

Nigel

 

[kail]

I must admit, I'm a little confused by these DNS benchmark tests. Which I shouldn't be, as they appear to be fairly straight forward. I seem to get contradicting/conflicting results (well.. almost the opposite results in some cases actually) between Namebench and Steve Gibson's DNS Benchmark. Does anybody else get this?

[Radaghast]

I must admit, I'm a little confused by these DNS benchmark tests. Which I shouldn't be, as they appear to be fairly straight forward. I seem to get contradicting/conflicting results (well.. almost the opposite results in some cases actually) between Namebench and Steve Gibson's DNS Benchmark. Does anybody else get this?

I've seen wide variation between these two in the past. Of the two, I'm more inclined to believe Namebench, it's more configurable. Google recommends running no less than 5000 queries with namebench, although it does take a while, it tends to be more representative, especially when run with different tests.

[Nige_39]

I've seen wide variation between these two in the past. Of the two, I'm more inclined to believe Namebench, it's more configurable. Google recommends running no less than 5000 queries with namebench, although it does take a while, it tends to be more representative, especially when run with different tests.

I sort of agree, but I will hang around the DNS address that Namebench gave me. Until Comodo looks into this Issue.

Nige.

[kail]

It seems Google was correct, I only got matching (correct?) results between DNS Benchmark and Namebench after running Namebench with 5,000 queries.

[Nige_39]

It seems Google was correct, I only got matching (correct?) results between DNS Benchmark and Namebench after running Namebench with 5,000 queries.

Thanks for checking into this kail. But I'm still going to wait and see what happens. Then I will change to the best DNS Connection.

Regards

Nigel

[Tags:]