Switching your IP to OpenDNS. Best move I ever made, pros and cons inside.

[razaron]

Mine's the fastest. Google is -58.9% and OpenDNS is -70.8%.

 

[Phusius]

You should try out dnscrypt its just a suggestion :S

I did try DNSCrypt, it felt like things were a tad slower then compared to just OpenDNS, OpenDNS is very snappy for me for some off reason I can tell a noticeable difference in load times, very cool.

 

[yogurt_21]

Mine's the fastest. Google is -58.9% and OpenDNS is -70.8%.

same, a dns server on your network will trump any of these all day long. they're pretty easy to setup too.

 

[Steevo]

I have been using OpenDNS for years. Awesome good, and if you ever find a bad domain you can submit for a block.

 

[Phusius]

I have been using OpenDNS for years. Awesome good, and if you ever find a bad domain you can submit for a block.

No idea what you mean by if you find a bad domain and you can submit for a block. No websites have given me any problems so I guess this is info I don't really need?

 

[Aquinus]

same, a dns server on your network will trump any of these all day long. they're pretty easy to setup too.

That's only if your local DNS server already has it cached and it hasn't timed out. If it doesn't know where xyz.com goes to, it has to ask another server and it isn't like your machine is requesting DNS information for the same domain multiple times. Once it gets the record, you're done until it times out or you flush your cache.

Some people also seem to be under the mistaken impression that a faster DNS server improves your bandwidth. This is NOT TRUE.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Yeah it would not increase bandwidth but it could improve "web browsing speed" if your particular ISPs DNS servers are often busy with other queries. The less time it takes to resolve name to IP the quicker the page will be loaded on your screen.

 

[yogurt_21]

That's only if your local DNS server already has it cached and it hasn't timed out. If it doesn't know where xyz.com goes to, it has to ask another server and it isn't like your machine is requesting DNS information for the same domain multiple times. Once it gets the record, you're done until it times out or you flush your cache.

you've obviously setup very few dns servers. If your dns server has absolutely zero and i mean zero error handlers then yes that's true...if you're not a complete novice then no that's not true.

 

[Aquinus]

you've obviously setup very few dns servers. If your dns server has absolutely zero and i mean zero error handlers then yes that's true...if you're not a complete novice then no that's not true.

Where did I even mention error handlers? I'm talking about DNS caching on the client and their TTL. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at. Also don't presume to call me a novice when you can't even clearly state what you're talking about yourself.

 

[Delta6326]

Think its worth it?

This is what I get.
I pay for .5 down and .256 up

After DNS change

bottom 2 are with my ISP's DNS, the new DNS seems more constant.

 

[Mussels]

this varies by ISP/country, use DNS testing programs like the one delta used (namebench? something like that) to find out properly.

 

[Delta6326]

Yeah I used Namebench just tested webpages do load faster now. Also just to note Namebench did take a while to finish around 10min or so.

 

[Ra97oR]

192% faster using Google DNS, 48ms avg vs 148ms using ISP DNS, at 0522! Virgin media really does sucks.

 

[Mussels]

around here my ISP's is faster than everything else, because most of these 'alternative' DNS servers are hosted in other countries

 

[yogurt_21]

Where did I even mention error handlers? I'm talking about DNS caching on the client and their TTL. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at. Also don't presume to call me a novice when you can't even clearly state what you're talking about yourself.

Read the novice comment again, it was aimed in general at those who don't know how to properly setup a dns server, not specifically to you (unless you count yourself among that category). Dns servers shouldn't sit there and keep one static cache until requested. They should be connected with either a dns service (one that handles filtering as well as caching) or a larger dns server like your ISP's dns server or even an open DNS server. When the master gets an update, so does your local one. The speed savings come in the fact that requests over gigabit LAN are going to be faster than requests over your net connection. (providing your dns server has recent enough hardware of course).

A dns server on your network that has a static cache and only requests new sites when you do isn't going to do you any good any more than a caching server that sits there static will do you any good, your browser cache does that already.

 

[pantherx12]

Go into your connection properties.

Under networking tab look for the list beneath "This connection uses the following items:"

Select your Internet Protocol Versions. I have 6 and 4. (TCP/IPv6, TCP/IPv4) and hit properties.

Select "Use the following DNS server addresses"

Enter 8.8.8.8 and/or 8.8.4.4 (Google's) or 208.67.222.222 and/or 208.67.220.220 (OpenDNS). They are the best.

Profit.

Edit: Using W7 64-bit

Where would I find this?

 

[Aquinus]

Read the novice comment again, it was aimed in general at those who don't know how to properly setup a dns server, not specifically to you (unless you count yourself among that category). Dns servers shouldn't sit there and keep one static cache until requested. They should be connected with either a dns service (one that handles filtering as well as caching) or a larger dns server like your ISP's dns server or even an open DNS server. When the master gets an update, so does your local one. The speed savings come in the fact that requests over gigabit LAN are going to be faster than requests over your net connection. (providing your dns server has recent enough hardware of course).

A dns server on your network that has a static cache and only requests new sites when you do isn't going to do you any good any more than a caching server that sits there static will do you any good, your browser cache does that already.

Aha. Okay. I was just saying the client holds on the the record until it has a reason to query it again. I agree though, a local DNS server would be substantially faster. It doesn't even have to be over 1Gbps, the local network latency is so low that it will be fast, even over 10Mbit. I apologize, I thought the "novice" comment was directed at me and I was wondering why.

 

[yogurt_21]

Aha. Okay. I was just saying the client holds on the the record until it has a reason to query it again. I agree though, a local DNS server would be substantially faster. It doesn't even have to be over 1Gbps, the local network latency is so low that it will be fast, even over 10Mbit. I apologize, I thought the "notice" comment was directed at me and I was wondering why.

it could have easily been worded better too so my apologies for that.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Where would I find this?

Depends on your operating system. You can Right-click your internet icon in the task bar and bring up Network Connections, or Start-->Connect To and then click show all connections. Pick whatever you are currently using, 1394, LAN, or wireless.

I'm using wireless so I double-click on Wireless Network Connection. Under the General tab click properties.

Under the General tab here's a small scroll box that says "This connection uses the following items:" Look for Internet Protocol(TCP/IP). I had to scroll to the bottom of the list to see it. Highlight it and click properties.

Now you should be in Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) Properties window. Under the General tab, at the bottom you should see that you can change from automatic to a DNS you enter.

Edit: This time I did this on WinXp 32-bit.