Im not wanting to alter anything, I just want to see, jesus On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> You can register with every geolocation service known to man and places > still find ways to place you incorrectly. I've got a new one now. > ShadowServer thinks I'm in Glen Ellyn. The IP block has never been in or > near Glen Ellyn. > > One could assume that the middle of a week day is a light NetFlix time and > that they would be pointing you to the nearest location. If they thought he > was in Albuquerque, that could make optimal routing a bit difficult. It > wouldn't just be the gross latency, but the number of peering points and > hops with potential congestion issues. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Monday, March 23, 2015 12:05:29 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] testing DNS server performance > > I also don’t know how important it is that a CDN be “near” you. > > By definition, you’re probably talking a sustained download, either a > video stream or some kind of large file download. And most of the time you > will see 4 parallel TCP connections. I really don’t think latency matters > once you start the download. What does matter is server balancing. If > your DNS server has correct geoIP but Netflix chooses to send your > customers to a server in Dallas, maybe their Chicago servers are overloaded > or undergoing maintenance. Do you really want to second guess their > decisions? About all you can do is make sure your DNS server is in the > right place according to the geolocation database services, and let the > content provider decide what IP address to hand out to your customers and > how to route that IP (they may use geoIP info to decide the routing, not > the DNS). > > Now, if your DNS server appears to be in a whole wrong part of the world, > that may have dramatic effects, like totally different content being > available because Netflix thinks your customer is in Europe or Asia. > > > *From:* Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 11:55 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] testing DNS server performance > > Pardon the mess, I'm on a laptop with a damn touchpad. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"That One Guy" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > *To: *af@afmug.com > *Sent: *Monday, March 23, 2015 11:43:50 AM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] testing DNS server performance > > used the wrong term > Ignore the term > Take cache out of thyne mouth > > now, being a windows dick, I dont have torch > > I want to simply be able to verify that appropriate CDNs are being utilized > > namebench is still running, I dont know what its output is going to be > > This cant be a new thing, I see threads occasionally about content being > problematic in that users are getting less than desirable CDNs, it always > seems to boil down to DNS, > > I just want a tool that will tell me where the content is coming from. (in > a perfect world, it would display on a map with a quality indicator to that > CDN, I dont have any expectation that that component of the tool would > exist) > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > >> Not generic. You have to use the one they provide. And they will not >> give to you unless you are doing some like 4tB per month. >> >> *From:* Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 10:33 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] testing DNS server performance >> >> I was not aware you could cache Netflix streams with a generic >> caching server. Not only due to DRM, but also Netflix app switches streams >> dynamically to match video quality to connection speed. Plus first the >> customer authenticates to Netflix server, chooses what content to watch, >> etc. >> >> >> *From:* Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 11:23 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] testing DNS server performance >> >> Say a new movie is on Netflix. Or latest season of cards. Everyone >> is going to want to watch it. So 1000 simultaneous backbone streams to >> Netflix vs 1000 simultaneous streams to the caching server in your NOC. I >> choose the latter. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> >> *To: *af@afmug.com >> *Sent: *Monday, March 23, 2015 11:08:27 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] testing DNS server performance >> >> I don’t understand how the caching server is going to help with CDNs. >> Actually, with so much Internet content now being either dynamic HTML or >> streaming, I wouldn’t think caching would be worth it, unless you are >> talking about something like a Netflix OpenConnect appliance. Maybe you >> can cache software updates, I’m not sure about that. >> >> >> *From:* That One Guy <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 10:35 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] testing DNS server performance >> >> Geographically close CDNs. I want to make sure we are getting content >> from Illinoisish rather than california for netflix, since all that matters >> is netflix >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For performance, look at queryperf which I think is provided by >>> ISC/bind. >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by "we are getting good CDNs and the like," >>> though. >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:27 AM, That One Guy < >>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Im bringing live our first caching server today. Is there a good tool >>>> for comparing queries between DNS servers. >>>> Im not all that concerned about speed since we are so small there wont >>>> be a huge amount of benefit I would think. Im primarily wanting to make >>>> sure we are getting good CDNs and the like >>>> >>>> -- >>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> > > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your > team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > > > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
