<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Test Driving Google Public DNS (Updated with OpenDNS comparison)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://andyleonard.com/2009/12/03/test-driving-google-publi-dns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://andyleonard.com/2009/12/03/test-driving-google-publi-dns/</link>
	<description>qstat -u aleonard -s z</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:27:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://andyleonard.com/2009/12/03/test-driving-google-publi-dns/comment-page-1/#comment-271</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andyleonard.com/?p=414#comment-271</guid>
		<description>@Raj - As query response times - reported by &quot;dig&quot; as &quot;Query time&quot; - fell into two fairly tight groups, it seemed a reasonable assumption to assume the the faster responses were served out of cache, while the slower response times were not.  Noting that repeated queries of the same hostname were always faster and always tightly clustered bears this out.  You could also look at the TTL of the returned record to see if it is cached or not - if it is below what the authoritative host has for it, you know you&#039;re looking at a cache hit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Raj &#8211; As query response times &#8211; reported by &#8220;dig&#8221; as &#8220;Query time&#8221; &#8211; fell into two fairly tight groups, it seemed a reasonable assumption to assume the the faster responses were served out of cache, while the slower response times were not.  Noting that repeated queries of the same hostname were always faster and always tightly clustered bears this out.  You could also look at the TTL of the returned record to see if it is cached or not &#8211; if it is below what the authoritative host has for it, you know you&#8217;re looking at a cache hit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raj</title>
		<link>http://andyleonard.com/2009/12/03/test-driving-google-publi-dns/comment-page-1/#comment-270</link>
		<dc:creator>Raj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://andyleonard.com/?p=414#comment-270</guid>
		<description>Hey I wnated to know how you compared public dns and opendns .I mean what tool did you use to see the cache hit and miss ratio.I want to test the cache hit and miss of some DNS related app need info and help on that</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey I wnated to know how you compared public dns and opendns .I mean what tool did you use to see the cache hit and miss ratio.I want to test the cache hit and miss of some DNS related app need info and help on that</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

