Google Cloud DNS(developers.google.com) |
Google Cloud DNS(developers.google.com) |
As a personal note, I would recommend the Edgecast DNS service over anything else. They have amazing customer support (something Google really lacks), and they've been in the CDN game for long enough to know that they are going to be around for awhile. They're also rather crazy about getting the best performance possible.
http://www.edgecast.com/services/route-managed-dns/
We pay around $2 a month at Route53.
I use dyn as well as run several dns servers in different places [1]
My reason for not using this is that it's being offered by google and the obvious fear that they will decide one day to stop offering this, supporting it, or improving it. As I am experiencing now with google voice for example,
[1] Since the mid 90's actually learning from this book:
However, we're using Edgecast for some things because the prices are much lower and they are actually capable of doing the same kind of health-check, failover and routing tricks at Dyn does. Their interface is just not fully ready yet so you have to email support to get changes and custom rules.
EDIT: Very quick non-representative test from 8 locations around the world shows Dyn responds faster than Google DNS in all of them. Note that these were datacenter connections so it could be very different for lower-bandwidth end-users.
I've heard that geographic-based DNS has something of a bad reputation, but I think it would be a very good fit for a side project I'm working on.
Your client does not have permission to get URL /cloud-dns/ from this server. (Client IP address: [my-ipv6-addr])
We're sorry, but this service is not available in your country."
Google is denying access to services based on their broken ipv6 geolocation data (they think I am in Tehran, but I'm in London.)
It's also likely that Google will continue to improve this service over time, so who knows what the future will hold. In the case of Amazon's Route 53, they have some really neat features for pointing alias records at S3 buckets and Load Balancers.
Google.
For instance, they could use you hosting your DNS with google as a signal, and it also gives them nice demographics information for sites that do not use GA.
Kind of surprised they don't make it free, compared to the value that would provide given the context of their other offerings they could nail all the competitors in this space while getting plenty of value out for themselves.
However, for DNS service to be of similar use does it mean application servers are going to be spread across geographically? For end customers it doesn't matter as they will always use the DNS configured for them by their ISP in most of the cases unless one is tech savvy and tries to use some other DNS such as Google etc.,?
Please help understand what am I missing here?
dig +short -t txt google-public-dns-a.google.com
http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2014/03/announcing-g...
Guess this is just on the front page because of XKCD about the other Google DNS product?
I created a browser test that measures recursive DNS query times. You can test Google DNS query performance using this link: http://bit.ly/1nY4e60
I had the same problem earlier this year, and if Rackspace or Route53 had AXFR support, I would have used them in a heartbeat...
1. migration
2. standard "config" API. You just keep up using your scripts to generate/update bind/tinydns configs.
It is the definition of a lot of engineers hours and infrastructure costs for literally no profit for the company. However, it is a basic service every hosting provides has to offer to be competitive.
AWS has Route 53 (which is probably not a huge money maker), Google needs to match them on this. I expect Google's offering to improve over time technically, just like Route 53 has. DNS is but one piece of each company's portfolio, but it's such a critical piece that it's expected to be there.
The only other two DNS services I recommend is DNSMadeEasy and EdgeCast DNS. Both happens to one of the most affordable as well as fastest. ( Strange combination )
The only bad thing is EdgeCast got brought by Verizon. I am worry if anything bad will happen.
Personally, DNS Made Easy is my favorite provider by far. Extremely fast, reliable, and priced very well. Plus, you don't have to deal with a sales guy unless you really want to.
I love it when Dyn or other big providers try and woo me. Thousands of dollars a month for DNS? Bahaha.
robert
From my perspective, I would prefer to pay $20 a year, than $1 a month.
https://www.zeitgeist.se/2014/05/01/google-cloud-dns-step-by...
I've been using UltraDNS for many years but this looks good too.
robert
My company makes about 160qps which translates to about half billion per month, so it doesn't seem too unrealistic.
An example of what can go wrong tho? http://blog.pagerduty.com/2013/12/outage-post-mortem-dec-11-...
Just a potential issue to keep in mind for people who do.
Your computer asks your ISP's DNS server for the record. If your ISP has it cached you're golden, but it turns out it probably isn't. So your ISP needs to go to ask the hampsterdance.com DNS server directly. If that server is in the United States then you're stuck waiting 133ms in one direction, 133ms back- you've now added a quarter of a second to that page loaded.
Using a DNS CDN means that 266ms ends up being 15ms (keep in mind that these guys also peer with local ISPs to make things even faster).
On the other hand, if your site makes you money and you've got competition then every edge you can get is worth while.
1) Round-trip times from Australia to the USA are truly as bad as 266ms
2) You're confusing ping's RTTs with one-way trips
3) You're assuming DNS has a syn/ack, which it doesn't.
EDIT: I suspect you realize there's no syn/ack in DNS based on your other comments... :)
