Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JasonUK" data-source="post: 916457" data-attributes="member: 86995">Still playing with DNS filtering on Adguard for windows as I noticed a slowdown of websites loading after I enabling the feature.Decided to run some ping tests (ping <a href="http://www.google.com" target="_blank">www.google.com</a>) using each of the main options to see if any were noticeable quicker or slower.&nbsp; Each &#039;score&#039; was the average of three ping tests (each ping itself takes an average of 4 requests so &#039;score&#039; is actually an average of 12 requests to server).[ATTACH=full]250087[/ATTACH]Edit: Second Google DNS entry should have read DoT Protocol.Interesting set of results from my location.&nbsp; Adguard didn&#039;t fare well. Cloudflare has very good reputation particularly on privacy.&nbsp; Google did well as did Quad9.&nbsp; For me it was down to a choice between Cloudflare &amp; Quad9.&nbsp; I opted for Quad9 with DNSCrypt for now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JasonUK, post: 916457, member: 86995"] Still playing with DNS filtering on Adguard for windows as I noticed a slowdown of websites loading after I enabling the feature. Decided to run some ping tests (ping [URL='http://www.google.com']www.google.com[/URL]) using each of the main options to see if any were noticeable quicker or slower. Each 'score' was the average of three ping tests (each ping itself takes an average of 4 requests so 'score' is actually an average of 12 requests to server). [ATTACH type="full" alt="Capture.JPG"]250087[/ATTACH] Edit: Second Google DNS entry should have read DoT Protocol. Interesting set of results from my location. Adguard didn't fare well. Cloudflare has very good reputation particularly on privacy. Google did well as did Quad9. For me it was down to a choice between Cloudflare & Quad9. I opted for Quad9 with DNSCrypt for now. [/QUOTE]

Verification