I'm a longtime user of DNS Benchmark - thank you , Steve! I recently purchased version 2.0 and ran a couple tests. Much to my surprise my internal LAN DNS caching server showed substantially slower than most all of the public offerings. How in the world can that be? What I'm I not seeing here? My internal server is a Raspberry PI running Rocky Linux 8 with bind v 9.11.
-
DNS Benchmark v2 is Finished and Available! Guest:
That's right. It took an entire year, but the result far more accurate and feature laden than we originally planned. The world now has a universal, multi-protocol, super-accurate, DNS resolver performance-measuring tool. This major second version is not free. But the deal is, purchase it once for $9.95 and you own it — and it's entire future — without ever being asked to pay anything more. For an overview list of features and more, please see The DNS Benchmark page at GRC. If you decide to make it your own, thanks in advance. It's a piece of work I'm proud to offer for sale. And if you should have any questions, many of the people who have been using and testing it throughout the past year often hang out here.
/Steve. -
Be sure to checkout “Tips & Tricks” Dear Guest Visitor → Once you register and log-in please checkout the “Tips & Tricks” page for some very handy tips!
/Steve. -
BootAble – FreeDOS boot testing freeware
To obtain direct, low-level access to a system's mass storage drives, SpinRite runs under a GRC-customized version of FreeDOS which has been modified to add compatibility with all file systems. In order to run SpinRite it must first be possible to boot FreeDOS.
GRC's “BootAble” freeware allows anyone to easily create BIOS-bootable media in order to workout and confirm the details of getting a machine to boot FreeDOS through a BIOS. Once the means of doing that has been determined, the media created by SpinRite can be booted and run in the same way.
The participants here, who have taken the time to share their knowledge and experience, their successes and some frustrations with booting their computers into FreeDOS, have created a valuable knowledgebase which will benefit everyone who follows.
You may click on the image to the right to obtain your own copy of BootAble. Then use the knowledge and experience documented here to boot your computer(s) into FreeDOS. And please do not hesitate to ask questions – nowhere else can better answers be found.
(You may permanently close this reminder with the 'X' in the upper right.)
I think you're going to have to produce some actual numbers if you want any meaningful comment. "substantially slower" is not really very helpful I'm afraid. The way the numbers are calculated is different in this version that in the previous... this new version takes into account additional types of requests when calculating performance for the sorting of the servers. You should be able to export some of your data from DNSB v2 and post them here so we can see what you're seeing. You may have to manually copy (or screen print maybe) the V1 details though.
@MikeD, you may be getting the same numbers, just ranked or 'valued' differently:
When DNSBench 1 was developed, web pages generally served
themselves, so, how quickly we could get to any page was most
important, because once we were there, we stayed - so, a local
cached response, such as a local PI server, was supreme.
Nowadays, web pages are served from all over with many pieces
and parts, so how quickly we can assemble many new parts from
different addresses is important, so averaging cached, uncached,
and dotcom query results better represents what's really going
on with complex web pages out there.
Share some 1:1 results for your PI server according to
DNSBench 1 versus DNSBench 2, and we'll look over your
shoulder.
Thanks.
- - - - -
More?
Q: Google, How does Steve Gibson compare DNSBench 1 versus DNSBench 2?
A: Steve Gibson's DNS Benchmark Version 2 (v2) is a comprehensive commercial redesign of the original v1 freeware, offering enhanced accuracy and support for modern DNS protocols like IPv6, DoT, and DoH. [1, 2]
Key Comparisons Between DNSBench 1 and DNSBench 2
In essence, v2 provides a much more robust, accurate, and feature-rich tool that reflects how the internet has evolved since the original's release, moving beyond simple speed tests to cover modern protocols, security features (like DNSSEC validation and rebinding protection), and better data management. The original v1 is still available for users who prefer the free, basic version. You can learn more about the features on the GRC DNS Benchmark page. [1, 5, 7, 8, 9]
[1] https://www.grc.com/dns/version-history.htm
[2] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm?source=---------2------------------
[3] https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=473759
[4] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
[5] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm?data1=hiip
[6] https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=473759
[7] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
[8] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
[9] https://taihen.org/posts/dns_benchmarking/
| Ranking Logic | DNSBench 1: Prized caching performance above all else, which favored local resolvers unrealistically | DNSBench 2: Defaults to a new "Best" performance sort, averaging cached, uncached, and dotcom query results for a more realistic assessment of actual performance |
When DNSBench 1 was developed, web pages generally served
themselves, so, how quickly we could get to any page was most
important, because once we were there, we stayed - so, a local
cached response, such as a local PI server, was supreme.
Nowadays, web pages are served from all over with many pieces
and parts, so how quickly we can assemble many new parts from
different addresses is important, so averaging cached, uncached,
and dotcom query results better represents what's really going
on with complex web pages out there.
Share some 1:1 results for your PI server according to
DNSBench 1 versus DNSBench 2, and we'll look over your
shoulder.
Thanks.
- - - - -
More?
Q: Google, How does Steve Gibson compare DNSBench 1 versus DNSBench 2?
A: Steve Gibson's DNS Benchmark Version 2 (v2) is a comprehensive commercial redesign of the original v1 freeware, offering enhanced accuracy and support for modern DNS protocols like IPv6, DoT, and DoH. [1, 2]
Key Comparisons Between DNSBench 1 and DNSBench 2
| Feature [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] | DNSBench 1 (v1) | DNSBench 2 (v2) |
| Cost | Freeware | One-time purchase of $9.95 USD |
| Protocols | IPv4 only | Supports IPv4, IPv6, DoT (DNS over TLS), and DoH (DNS over HTTPS) |
| Accuracy | Less precise due to timing jitter on a busier internet | More accurate; performs 5 times as many queries by default (250 vs. 50) to compensate for modern network "jitter" |
| Ranking Logic | Prized caching performance above all else, which favored local resolvers unrealistically | Defaults to a new "Best" performance sort, averaging cached, uncached, and dotcom query results for a more realistic assessment of actual performance |
| User Interface/Features | Basic progress bar, limited options | Detailed progress monitor, nameserver page cloning (snapshot windows for comparison), pop-up notifications, and advanced filtering options |
| Results Management | Results could not be saved as a file | Allows saving results as simple text or CSV (comma-separated values) files |
| Operation Speed | Fixed speed | User-adjustable query-issuing speed to accommodate varying network conditions (e.g., VPNs) |
[1] https://www.grc.com/dns/version-history.htm
[2] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm?source=---------2------------------
[3] https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=473759
[4] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
[5] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm?data1=hiip
[6] https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=473759
[7] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
[8] https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
[9] https://taihen.org/posts/dns_benchmarking/
Hi there, I'm running the NextDNS Cli tool on Ubuntu with caching enabled and I am getting the expected (opposite to you) result. My results after an initial run are so fast compared to everything else, the bars are almost invisible.
I'm not on an expert on this, but I can at least verify that the benchmark can certainly see that I have local caching enabled and working. Which suggests to me that something is wrong with your setup, maybe.
Attachments
Hey @MikeD:
That replies you received are correct. Your local resolver has the problem of not being as well connected to the Internet as any of the large CDN mega-resolvers. So anything it needs to fetch the IP for an unknown domain, it needs to go out and do that through your consumer ISP bandwidth. By comparison, the mega-resolvers being run by the mega-CDNs are very likely to have a much wider array of domains already cached, and they are SO well connected to the rest of the Internet that when they do not have the answer they're able to obtain it far faster.
So it is absolutely true that DNSB v2 will deliver completely different results from v1 ... and there's a strong argument to be made for v2 being the better answer.
THIS is one of the reasons I bring web research into our discussions -
so we can audit them and make corrections! Google found:
Not true! Both versions of DNSBench produce equivalent file save
results, with DNSBench 2 adding a new summary of information
gleaned from the other saveable files. So, yes, DNSBench 1 results
can be saved. And DNSBench 2 adds a supplemental summary
report.
So either Google or a source web page was not clear on the
similarities, differences, and enhancements between DNSBench 1
and DNSBench 2.
DNSBench 1 does not produce a collated summary such as this
sample reports ( below ) from DNSBench 2:
[ Space Padded ] [ and [ Comma Separated ]:
so we can audit them and make corrections! Google found:
| Results Management | DNSBench 1: Results could not be saved as a file | DNSBench 2: Allows saving results as simple text or CSV (comma-separated values) files |
Not true! Both versions of DNSBench produce equivalent file save
results, with DNSBench 2 adding a new summary of information
gleaned from the other saveable files. So, yes, DNSBench 1 results
can be saved. And DNSBench 2 adds a supplemental summary
report.
So either Google or a source web page was not clear on the
similarities, differences, and enhancements between DNSBench 1
and DNSBench 2.
DNSBench 1 does not produce a collated summary such as this
sample reports ( below ) from DNSBench 2:
[ Space Padded ] [ and [ Comma Separated ]:
Similar threads
