dnsperftest VS NAMEinator

Running DNSPerfTest on a linux machine, I see:

When I run a DNS performance test (which will detect your device settings and add a predefined list for comparison I get these results:

Namebench and DNSPerfTest

So I looked into how I could improve performance, and found the Unbound option serve-expired, and on the Pi-hole side, the dnsmasq option use-stale-cache. They seem to do the same thing, just at different points in the DNS lookup chain, and either one gives me a huge, noticeable speedup. Using dnsperftest, my setup was always the slowest resolver, and now it's usually at the top.

Link to script for anyone interested: https://github.com/cleanbrowsing/dnsperftest

The fellas of Cleanbrowsing created a nifty little script

With a DNS test, it's always far behind opendns, google or cloudflare.

I still believe that Quad9 is better, but I also noticed that when I run this script https://github.com/cleanbrowsing/dnsperftest only against Quad9 and Cloudflare I get many timeouts for Quad9 ... :/

just out of curiosity, I started playing around with Nameinator and found my pi-hole to be very slow in comparison. I doubt I "feel" that in day to day usage, but still was wondering why that might be or whether this is expected (running pi-hole with unbound and as DHCP as well).

I'm using the NAMEinator to benchmark my 2 PiHoles. I got very surprised by the result. The Raspberry Pi 4 is 4 times faster than Synology DS918+ (with 16 Gb).

Tem, mas não é tão simples. É só instalar Go e clonar a repo no github: https://github.com/mwiora/NAMEinator