Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Plusnet Community
- :
- Forum
- :
- Help with my Plusnet services
- :
- Broadband
- :
- Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
30-05-2014 6:43 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Diagnostics tell me that the DNS servers are not responding.
I have put Google DNS servers in my adaptor settings & the pages load almost instantly.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
30-05-2014 11:32 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
http://usertools.plus.net/status/archive/1401373622.htm
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
31-05-2014 9:18 AM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Quote Posted on: Thursday 29 May 2014, 15:27
Our network engineers have been investigating a solution for this and we'll be implementing some changes this evening.
@Chris,
I don't think that happened.
Can we please have a update on this.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
25-07-2014 12:37 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
I have been having problems with slow DNS lookups for a while. I have made things useable by putting
Googles public DNS server details into my PC's network connection settings..
Not sure what's going on..
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
25-07-2014 1:22 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
[tt]212.159.6.9 17.06/18.02/19.03/0.63/0
212.159.6.10 17.79/18.12/18.60/0.28/0
212.159.13.49 17.31/17.90/18.40/0.43/0
212.159.13.50 17.53/18.16/18.88/0.46/0
[/tt]
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
25-07-2014 4:07 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
[tt]
Nameserver Response Time (ms)
min avg max stdev retries
212.159.6.9 3.79 4.28 4.79 0.41 0
212.159.6.10 4.50 4.85 5.10 0.20 0
212.159.13.49 3.82 4.45 4.83 0.43 0
212.159.13.50 3.82 4.47 4.88 0.40 0
Local Unbound 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.02 0
[/tt]
Had another re-jig, so have moved Unbound to an RPi myself now too, 11110_110.
Even decided to give the ad-blocking a try. Works very nicely, I must say
EDIT:
On the other hand, there has been quite a bit of packet loss here, so that could be a more likely cause of any recent sluggishness if it isn't local to my exchange.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
25-07-2014 4:48 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Ex-Broadband Service Manager
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
25-07-2014 6:30 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
That's one advantage of the LCP echo system Andrews and Arnold use, I suppose. Useful to have both.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
27-07-2014 1:48 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Quote from: SuperZoom
[tt]
Nameserver Response Time (ms)
min avg max stdev retries
212.159.6.9 3.79 4.28 4.79 0.41 0
212.159.6.10 4.50 4.85 5.10 0.20 0
212.159.13.49 3.82 4.45 4.83 0.43 0
212.159.13.50 3.82 4.47 4.88 0.40 0
Local Unbound 0.89 0.91 0.94 0.02 0
[/tt]
Had another re-jig, so have moved Unbound to an RPi myself now too, 11110_110.
Even decided to give the ad-blocking a try. Works very nicely, I must say
Your figures seem nice and tight now, did you find out what was causing your http slowdown?
Yeah I think the little Raspberry does a sterling job as a DNS-cache, filtering works very well with yoyo's list
Not sure if you've seen the conversion script or not, makes things slightly easier, yoyo updates the list once a month and it doesn't go over the top, just about perfect infact for me with OpenDNS Family-Safe ip's in combination with dnstop "sudo dnstop -l 9 eth0" for a quick view
#!/bin/sh
#
# Convert the Yoyo.org anti-ad server listing
# into an unbound dns spoof redirection list.
wget -O yoyo_ad_servers "http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/serverlist.php?hostformat=hosts&mimetype=plaintext" && \
cat yoyo_ad_servers | grep 127 | awk '{print $2}' | \
while read line ; \
do \
echo "local-zone: \"$line\" redirect" ;\
echo "local-data: \"$line A 127.0.0.1\"" ;\
done > \
filter.conf
# then add an include line to your unbound.conf pointing to the full path of
# the filter.conf file:
#
# include: filter.conf
#
This gives you a basic idea how well mine is working atm, about 24 days worth 4 pc's!
sudo unbound-control stats_noreset
[tt]
thread0.num.queries=177805
thread0.num.cachehits=116441
thread0.num.cachemiss=61364
thread0.num.prefetch=4274
thread0.num.recursivereplies=61364
thread0.requestlist.avg=0.785795
thread0.requestlist.max=11
thread0.requestlist.overwritten=0
thread0.requestlist.exceeded=0
thread0.requestlist.current.all=0
thread0.requestlist.current.user=0
thread0.recursion.time.avg=0.043214
thread0.recursion.time.median=0.0312249
total.num.queries=177805
total.num.cachehits=116441
total.num.cachemiss=61364
total.num.prefetch=4274
total.num.recursivereplies=61364
total.requestlist.avg=0.785795
total.requestlist.max=11
total.requestlist.overwritten=0
total.requestlist.exceeded=0
total.requestlist.current.all=0
total.requestlist.current.user=0
total.recursion.time.avg=0.043214
total.recursion.time.median=0.0312249
time.now=1406463969.769328
time.up=2174933.197749
time.elapsed=2174933.197749
[/tt]
Again thanks to npr for his help and guidance.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
27-07-2014 4:10 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Any chance of a copy of your unbound.conf, to see if I'm missing a trick.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
27-07-2014 4:39 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Don't forget I'm using max memory for the cpu in raspi-config and permanant over-clocking "not on demand"
What speeds are you getting from your SD card ? http://elinux.org/RPi_SD_cards
Write speed:
sync; time dd if=/dev/zero of=~/test.tmp bs=500K count=1024; time sync
Read speed:
dd if=~/test.tmp of=/dev/null bs=500K count=1024
Delete the temporary file:
rm ~/test.tmp
My results:
sync; time dd if=/dev/zero of=~/test.tmp bs=500K count=1024; time sync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 29.0842 s, 18.0 MB/s
real 0m29.463s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m9.480s
real 0m2.577s
dd if=~/test.tmp of=/dev/null bs=500K count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 28.1743 s, 18.6 MB/s
uname -a
Linux 3.10.37+ #669 PREEMPT Tue Apr 15 14:44:32 BST 2014 armv6l GNU/Linux
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
27-07-2014 8:21 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Quote pi@piDNS ~ $ sync; time dd if=/dev/zero of=~/test.tmp bs=500K count=1024; time sync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 43.4871 s, 12.1 MB/s
real 0m45.819s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m10.120s
real 0m0.057s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.010s
pi@piDNS ~ $ dd if=~/test.tmp of=/dev/null bs=500K count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 28.6999 s, 18.3 MB/s
pi@piDNS ~ $ uname -a
Linux piDNS 3.10.25+ #622 PREEMPT Fri Jan 3 18:41:00 GMT 2014 armv6l GNU/Linux
My write speed is a bit slower but the read speeds are near enough the same.
My Pi is one of the early 256 MB ones. I believe you've said yours is 512 MB, I'm sure that will make a difference.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
27-07-2014 8:57 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
These are the figures so far without the filter running, it looks on target for the same sort of figures as with it running.
[tt]
thread0.num.queries=1400
thread0.num.cachehits=684
thread0.num.cachemiss=716
thread0.num.prefetch=24
thread0.num.recursivereplies=716
thread0.requestlist.avg=0.766216
thread0.requestlist.max=7
thread0.requestlist.overwritten=0
thread0.requestlist.exceeded=0
thread0.requestlist.current.all=0
thread0.requestlist.current.user=0
thread0.recursion.time.avg=0.054768
thread0.recursion.time.median=0.0362699
total.num.queries=1400
total.num.cachehits=684
total.num.cachemiss=716
total.num.prefetch=24
total.num.recursivereplies=716
total.requestlist.avg=0.766216
total.requestlist.max=7
total.requestlist.overwritten=0
total.requestlist.exceeded=0
total.requestlist.current.all=0
total.requestlist.current.user=0
total.recursion.time.avg=0.054768
total.recursion.time.median=0.0362699
time.now=1406489662.454376
time.up=9984.115238
time.elapsed=9984.115238
[/tt]
Here are my figures for my 256mb version with no over-clocking and a class(6) Card
Linux 3.10.25+ #622 PREEMPT Fri Jan 3 18:41:00 GMT 2014 armv6l GNU/Linux
[tt]
sys 0m0.000s
sync; time dd if=/dev/zero of=~/test.tmp bs=500K count=1024; time sync
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 98.9418 s, 5.3 MB/s
real 1m40.514s
user 0m0.020s
sys 0m10.020s
real 0m6.081s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
dd if=~/test.tmp of=/dev/null bs=500K count=1024
1024+0 records in
1024+0 records out
524288000 bytes (524 MB) copied, 28.5679 s, 18.4 MB/s[/tt]
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
27-07-2014 9:09 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
Quote from: 11110_110 Yes I have the 512mb version, so it seems that might well be why, I'll do some tests on the 256mb version when I get around to it.
I'll look forward to seeing those results.
It may justify upgrading my Pi.
Re: Plusnet DNS Servers Slow?
28-07-2014 2:32 PM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report to Moderator
So this is about 20 days' worth of extremely light and sporadic use from ours (not much going on here at the moment, hence a re-jig).
It's a Model B, overclocked to 900Mhz and 2v, in the safe way via config.txt, but with the standard memory allocation.
(I notice a new B+ has just been released with a more nifty push-lock microSD card reader, and some other stuff, so now may be the time to snap up bargain 512MB Model B stock!)
Unbound doesn't take a lot of memory at all, however.
At idle, top reveals:
[tt]
VIRT= 42084
RES= 24m
SHR= 2036
%MEM= 5.7
[/tt]
%CPU is zero, rising to 1% if I pull up a web page on a client.
[EDIT FOR CLARITY: so, with the current settings, the "on demand" overclocking doesn't actually kick in.]
SD card performance shouldn't matter very much either, provided all the logging is turned off...
[tt]
total.num.queries=22218
total.num.cachehits=3788
total.num.cachemiss=18430
total.num.prefetch=326
total.num.recursivereplies=18430
total.requestlist.avg=0.904191
total.requestlist.max=21
total.requestlist.overwritten=0
total.requestlist.exceeded=0
total.requestlist.current.all=0
total.requestlist.current.user=0
total.recursion.time.avg=0.226320
total.recursion.time.median=0.0718047
time.now=1406553860.862030
time.up=1776754.178674
time.elapsed=1776754.178674
[/tt]
You can see that because the usage is sporadic, there are lots of cache misses, and because ours is doing its own recursion (not merely caching) on an end-user connection (albeit with the low latency of FTTP) the average and median recursion times are higher than your use case, 11110_110, of leveraging OpenDNS's enormous cache and processing power as an upstream resolver.
Unbound is definitely faster running on an old laptop. The lower processing power of the Raspberry Pi does have a significant impact - but the upside is a single-purpose appliance which consumes little power, generates little heat and produces no noise.
The interesting thing is that even on our connection, where latency to PlusNet's DNS servers is so low, it is still worth doing this. I don't know whether it's simply the solid, reliable consistency of it or what, but the connection is more responsive with local servers. Those nice figures I posted for the PlusNet ones certainly can't be relied upon to stay that way, so I'd rather not have to think about what they're doing at any particular moment.
I haven't noticed any performance penalty from having the ad filters activated.
I'm using the YoYo list too, and have a very similar script.
I actually serve up the IP address of the RPi rather than the loopback address and have set up the firewall on it to reject the resulting requests. Minimal resource use and they fail much more quickly that way for a variety of clients, especially Android devices, I've found.
Here's our skeleton unbound.conf with unmodified defaults, site-specifics and notes removed. The RPi only has a single core, of course, but I've left those lines in in case anyone wants to fiddle on a more powerful machine and assess the impact of processing power. The extra send and receive socket buffers are probably neither needed nor useful with a max request list of 21(!) and especially considering I haven't overridden the system's limits, but I've left them in too because I'm still intending to have a play around with that.
server:
auto-trust-anchor-file: "/var/lib/unbound/root.key"
root-hints: "/etc/unbound/root.hints"
verbosity: 0
statistics-interval: 0
num-threads: 1
msg-cache-slabs: 1
rrset-cache-slabs: 1
infra-cache-slabs: 1
key-cache-slabs: 1
outgoing-range: 950
num-queries-per-thread: 512
so-rcvbuf: 4m
so-sndbuf: 4m
cache-min-ttl: 3600
module-config: "iterator"
interface: #According to your needs
outgoing-interface: #According to your needs
access-control: #According to your needs
port: 53
prefetch: yes
do-ip4: yes
do-ip6: no
do-udp: yes
do-tcp: no
hide-identity: yes
hide-version: yes
harden-short-bufsize: yes
harden-large-queries: yes
harden-glue: yes
private-address: #According to your needs
private-domain: #According to your needs
local-zone: #According to your needs
local-data: #According to your needs
include: "/etc/unbound/adfilter.conf"
rrset-cache-size: 40m
msg-cache-size: 20m
infra-cache-numhosts: 30000
forward-zone: #According to your needs
name: #According to your needs
forward-first: #According to your needs
forward-addr: #According to your needs
remote-control:
control-enable: yes #According to your needs
control-interface: #According to your needs
control-port: #According to your needs
As to HTTP responsiveness, an explanation remains elusive. Sometimes (occasionally) it flies. If you've ever had your car handbrake get jammed on, it's a bit like that. It gets unstuck and suddenly you think "that's better, I knew there was something wrong!" It either has to be something to do with BT profiles or the exchange, or with latency introduced by PlusNet's profiling and traffic management system. The times when it performs as I'd expect must be when some profile or other is temporarily removed for maintenance, or routing or SVLANs are in the process of being reconfigured or something. We actually connect to a different bRAS now, so can't have been that. Everything is much, much better than it was at one point, mind you. I wouldn't be surprised if it were the exchange. In any case, I should soon have an opportunity to do some comparative tests on a good quality FTTC connection on another exchange, so it will be interesting to see what the difference is.
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page