Open DNS Continually Fails

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by sportsfan7700, Jun 29, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MikeBCda

    MikeBCda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Posts:
    1,627
    Location:
    southern Ont. Canada
    I've tried OpenDNS but didn't bother keeping it when I found there was no noticeable speed improvement over "auto-detect" (the latter presumably being my ISP's DNS). And I'm not particularly concerned with their security offerings since I think I'm relatively knowledgeable about internet security (with, of course, the assistance of others here).

    Relevant to the original question, someone had posted in another thread (not even sure it was here, but maybe someone remembers it and can provide a link) fairly recently that they'd found that time of day was significant in comparing DNS lookup-and-connection speeds. IIRC, they found that using their ISP DNS was fairly consistently faster than OpenDNS during the day but slower at night, or maybe it was the other way around.
     
  2. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    tbh its the granular control and information that OpenDNS provides on the user control panel that wins it for me, all the other DNS's mentioned dont seem to have a granular user control panel to speak of leaving it completely automated, the extra features provided in the control centre are worth using OpenDNS for.
     
  3. guest

    guest Guest

    Of course. Nothing wrong with assumptions being made.

    1. It's a fact that in most locations of the world, Google Public DNS is currently faster;

    2. OpenDNS only has servers in USA and some parts of Europe.

    So, who got a better infrastructure? Obviously the one that has more servers all around the world, which isn't OpenDNS.

    +

    How do you know that Google and OpenDNS servers are in the same location in UK? I don't know of any map like this OpenDNS one showing where Google Public DNS servers are.

    But anyways, I have another example for you: in Mexico, which is near of all the 8 american OpenDNS servers, there is no clear winner in this OpenDNS x Google Public DNS performance dispute.

    Put things in context, stop taking everything as absolutes. It's real boring to discuss with extremist people.

    OpenDNS is harming the standards, but not every one of them. Now, does it seem better to you? I though it was obvious, from the start - the NXDOMAIN substitution practice by OpenDNS is what doesn't comply with DNS standards.

    I really don't believe there are privacy issues in OpenDNS, neither I believe there are any in Google Public DNS. Their privacy policies are very clear.

    The fact is that the NXDOMAIN substitution practice by OpenDNS:

    - isn't covered by DNS standards;

    - messes with user's search request from the address bar of a browser that is configured to use other search engine, covertly redirecting to a server owned by OpenDNS without the user's consent (but within the OpenDNS Terms of Service);

    - breaks some non-web applications which rely on getting an NXDOMAIN for non-existent domains, such as e-mail spam filtering, or VPN access where the private network's nameservers are consulted only when the public ones fail to resolve;

    - makes possible to give a limited typo-correcting service.

    Conclusion: there are many cons on this practice and, fortunately, it can be disabled on OpenDNS CP if it starts to be problematic in some way or another.

    So, I disagree with people quoting this feature on statements as if it is something that makes OpenDNS special, better and so on.

    It should be noted that OpenDNS claims to offer some free malware/botnet protection, which I never tested. Also, it seems like this is somewhat limited and fully available only in the business version of the service.

    Can you give more information regarding this?

    It's a debate about many things.

    Giving the fact that Phishtank filter is inferior than IE/Firefox built-in filters and already present in Opera, it isn't effective. To be considered effective, at least by me, it should be better than the IE/Firefox filters - just like the Norton filters, for example, are.

    The bonus security from Phishtank when running IE8/Firefox isn't statistically significant to make OpenDNS a better solution because of this alone and is a very weak argument when trying to promote OpenDNS for users.

    And are blocked by OpenDNS immediately after being accepted? If yes, maybe the filter isn't being immediately updated on Opera. An assumption is that it is updated when you start the browser.

    Nice that now you accept, at least that 32-bit apps running in 64-bit OS have their memory consuption somewhat increased compared to running the same 32-bit apps in 32-bit OS.

    But, no, I wasn't obscuring the facts. Also, the memory increase can be significant for systems with low available RAM, exactly the ones that I don't recommend to run x64 OS.

    Thanks for trying to clarify your offensive statement. But anyways, I'm not spamming, neither I'm posting any nonsense.

    From their privacy policies, we can see what they collect and for what purposes - all similar in both.

    So, please, stop with childly Google prejudice and describe how exactly Google Public DNS collects more data than OpenDNS and/or poses an additional risk to privacy on its way of handling this data.

    Again:

    How do you know that Google and OpenDNS servers are in the same location in UK? I don't know of any map like this OpenDNS one showing where Google Public DNS servers are.

    But anyways, I have another example for you: in Mexico, which is near of all the 8 american OpenDNS servers, there is no clear winner in this OpenDNS x Google Public DNS performance dispute.

    lolwhat?

    It's a simple fact that Google Public DNS is faster in near all parts of the world where OpenDNS doesn't have servers - which is, indeed, still the big majority of the world.
     
  4. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    alright at this point, these posts are gunna start taking up multiple pages on their own lol...
     
  5. bellgamin

    bellgamin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    8,099
    Location:
    Hawaii
    To be charitable, DunkyFude's persistent sarcasm might be a futile attempt at humor. However, report the problem if it bothers you. *puppy*
     
  6. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    I semi-agree. Obviously having more servers IS better, yeah. But IF OpenDNS has servers in the same locations as Google does, it proves OpenDNS is simply better, and not that it's winning by advantage of location.

    London is the only place due to LYNX that makes sense. Plus all the Google search servers are in London last I read. So I'm making an educated guess.

    Okay, well if I was a resident in this area, I'd have to wager more than just speed to make my choice, I'd have to advance onto feature selection.

    Yup, but you stated it pretty severely, as if OpenDNS was the devil against DNS standards - which it obviously isn't. I personally dislike the redirecting, but I know many that like it as a feature, and it's generally far more meaningful than an error page to them.

    The only browser that was ever affected by this was firefox. Chrome and Opera work fine. I'm willing to bet it's a firefox issue.

    Yup, some of the many reasons I dislike this feature.

    No, I'd definitely not use this as a feature advantage either.

    The free version unfortunately has no malware protection(something like Norton DNS), just "botnet protection". Basically it alerts you of any DNS requests that are known botnet dial home attempts, making it easier to spot if a machine under your network is infected.

    I made that assumption as Netcraft submissions are very close to instant to being blocked by Opera.

    The speed that accepted Phishtank phish's are blocked by OpenDNS appears to vary greatly. I believe most are reviewed by the OpenDNS team before being blocked.

    You should have stated that in the first place then, as I have no machines available to test with low amounts of RAM. Every machine I've tested has minimal to unnoticeable memory growth.

    Childly prejudice? The company makes money from information, that what it is, an information company. How would I describe that when I don't work for them? OpenDNS is a DNS company, they make money from using yahoo by default for searches and from their business customers. Where as many of Google's products released so far involves harvesting information/details from the user, why would this one be any different.

    I'm sorry. What part was unclear?

    The only FACT here is that Google DNS is winning by location and server quantity in specific areas, not speed of service. Again, you cannot state Google is faster as a fact until the evidence is conclusive all over the world, and the locations are tested against competitors locations.
     
  7. Mark32

    Mark32 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Posts:
    1
    I'd like to point out that recent versions of Safari, Firefox and Chrome (and probably Opera as well) pre-load DNS immediately after a page loads, so raw DNS performance isn't that much of an issue anymore. (that is: by the time you have clicked the link it's been resolved for a while...) Just pick any DNS server you like.

    I think the point about NXDOMAIN redirection is a bit moot. Yeah, it doesn't follow the standards, but then blocking malware websites at the DNS level isn't following any standards, either. As long as it's not Verisign doing Sitefinder for the ENTIRE INTERNET, it's ok: it all boils down to user choice.

    However, redirecting your Google searches to another site is inexcusable.
     
  8. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Again to reiterate, firefox was the only browser affected by this, probably because of the way it tried to match a search string vs a TLD. Never-the-less v4 of firefox appears to forward ALL my results to a Google search.... even though Google isn't my default search engine.

    So now firefox is redirecting all my searches, which is inexcusable. Whilst Opera and Chrome will properly respect my default search engine, and use that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.