View Single Post
  #11  
Old January 2nd 18, 05:17 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default Windows DNS cache

"Brian Gregory" wrote

| I don't have a LAN. I don't allow sharing with other
| computers for security reasons.
|
| Surely your PC isn't connected directly to the internet?

I have a router connected to the cable input and
computers connected to that. I don't know if you'd
call that a LAN. I don't consider it a LAN because I
don't enable networking or filesharing functionality
on any of the computers.

| Maybe, but if a DNS result says it's valid for longer why not cache it
| for a bit longer.
|
| It's rather a pathetic PC by modern standards that can't spare 12MB of
RAM.
|

I doubt that external IP addresses are being cached via
DNS Client. If they were it would be redundant caching.
It's not a matter of sparing 12 MB RAM. There's no need
for the functionality because I don't have local networking.
There's no need for dozens of services. Many are security
risks. Since I don't enable any kind of networking I have
no need for any of those:
Workstation, Server, Remote* (except RPC),
COM+, NetLogon, Network DDE, NetMeeting, Messenger,
NLA, NPS, RPC security, Routing and Remote Access, SSDP
Discovery, UPNP, Terminal Services, WebClient.... All
unnecessary without local networking. Many of them risky.
It doesn't make sense to assume that someone is trying
to conserve RAM just because something isn't running. I
just like to keep things clean and lean and as safe as
possible.

If you're concerned about online speed I don't see the
logic. A DNS request probably takes a few ms. If I visit
a fast website it loads instantly in my perception. The DNS
request is a miniscule part of that. If you find your browser
is slow then your time would be better spent editing your
HOSTS file to stop ads and maybe disabling script when
possible.

| If the cache were long-lived there would be problems
| when a site changes IP address. I ran into that at one
| point when I found that several sites had disappeared.
| I finally figured out that the DNS proxy I use, Acrylic,
| stores a much longer DNS stash. Something like 10 days.
|
| It was probably broken then. Anything that caches DNS results should be
| asking for the Time To Live of results of queries it caches and not
| keeping them any longer than that as an absolute maximum. If that's too
| complicated just keep them, say, an hour.
|

Acrylic has its own system, caching for much
longer than normal. It can be adjusted. I'm guessing
the author(s) just assumes anyone using it knows
enough to manage caching. It's proxy DNS server
software.

| Aside from that, I don't know of any reason to cache
| DNS or to worry about cache. The storage time is brief
| and the time required for a DNS query is negligible. So
| it doesn't much matter one way or the other.
|
| All those queries to separate site for pictures, javascript, google
| APIs, Google adverts, other adverts etc. etc.
|

Speak for yourself. There hasn't been a Google
ad on my machines for ages. Possibly not in this
century. I also block their tracking. And I block
web fonts. And I rarely enable script. But even if,
for some reason, you welcome all those things, it
only needs one DNS request per visit to each domain.
As noted above, if you find it lagging then DNS is
almost certainly not the problem. Script and ads
and spyware are. If your car is sitting too low to
drive the solution is not to take the tire guage out
of the glove compartment. The solution is to take
the concrete blocks out of the trunk.

Another issue is that most pages these days are
dynamic. Since the page is generated on call, the
content and linked images are always new and
therefore there's no going to the browser cache.
No 304s. Very inefficient. But with speeds what
they are it doesn't seem to matter. I suspect any
slowness you experience is probably due to the
amazingly bloated script that's being used these
days. Often 2 MB or more.


Ads