Jump to content
Jud

Man, Sometimes This Stuff Is Just Weird...

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

All of a sudden beginning shortly before bed last night, my system is crackling, spitting, popping. Between last night and tonight I move and change all sorts of wires, switch DACs, refresh all the settings on the microRendu, reboot microRendu, change software, change software settings, restart my network switch - nothing helps.

 

I remember that there are some beta settings for my network routers, and that one of them, local network DNS caching, has acted up before.  Turn off local network DNS caching, reboot network - everything is perfect.

 

Local network DNS caching.  Of course, intuitively obvious.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, A+ -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC ->

Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

I would look for a loose wire on an XLR ground pin somewhere.

 

I looked for all loose wires everywhere - twice in most cases - unplugged/replugged the XLR connections, RCAs, speaker cables, high and low voltage power connections, changed USB cables, took ISO Regen and LPS-1 out of the system, put them back, replaced Pro-Ject DAC with iFi, uninstalled and reinstalled software, tried players on Windows, Mac and Linux, rebooted the microRendu, dumped the mpd cache in the microRendu and rebooted again, switched to NAA and rebooted again, updated Windows 10 to latest Fast Ring build...and there's probably a bunch more I'm forgetting. No change.

 

The giveaway that it was something to do with network was when I noticed 3 different network players with wonky timing - 6 minutes left in the song, then taking 3 seconds to get to 5:59, another couple to 5:58....  Loose wires don't do that.  So I changed the router setting (which as I said is in beta and has caused problems once or twice before - try it again every so often because local DNS caching is nice when it works), and voila.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, A+ -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC ->

Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jud, this is a home network right?  What does local DNS caching get you performance-wise, say over just pointing your border device to Google's public DNS servers and letting them do the work?  


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, crenca said:

Jud, this is a home network right?  What does local DNS caching get you performance-wise, say over just pointing your border device to Google's public DNS servers and letting them do the work?  

 

It can be a bit faster and work if your chosen DNS servers are down.  There are also the privacy concerns related to informing Google of your every interaction with the Internet.  Cloudfare's 1.1.1.1 / 1.0.0.1 DNS servers are a good alternative that are a bit faster without directly contributing to Google's already vast db of information.  It's slower than Cloudflare, but I also use quad9 DNS as well without issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jud what kind of network device are you using? I recently bought the Netgear Orbi for my home mesh network. If I am remembering correctly, you are using one of the mesh network things too. I hope I didn't just buy into a mess...


“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be One.” – Marcus Aurelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mrvco said:

 

It can be a bit faster and you can add some custom entries to block or redirect specific DNS lookups.  There are also the privacy concerns related to informing Google of your every interaction with the Internet.  Cloudfare's 1.1.1.1 / 1.0.0.1 DNS servers are a good alternative that are a bit faster without directly contributing to Google's already vast db of information.  It's slower than Cloudflare, but I also use quad9 DNS as well without issue.

 

I also use Cloudflare. So far so good, and it is a bit faster.


“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be One.” – Marcus Aurelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mrvco said:

 

It can be a bit faster and work if your chosen DNS servers are down.  There are also the privacy concerns related to informing Google of your every interaction with the Internet.  Cloudfare's 1.1.1.1 / 1.0.0.1 DNS servers are a good alternative that are a bit faster without directly contributing to Google's already vast db of information.  It's slower than Cloudflare, but I also use quad9 DNS as well without issue.

 

All true.  I don't know what the uptime stats on Google's or these other DNS providers are, but I bet they are more reliable (much more) than any consumer (i.e. "home") grade equipment and DNS cache.  

 

Putting aside the wider issues of Big Corp data collection/oversight, I was wondering why (barring some oddity in ISP service, etc.) anyone would cache DNS locally in a home networking environment.  DNS is basic backbone stuff  -  why reinvent the wheel with cheap and spotty reliable consumer grade crap?  Jud's friendly comment box Net Admin recommends he turns that crap off, KISS it, etc.  Why he is at it he can get rid of his cable risers, grounding boxes, and dubious formats/encodings as well 😋


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jud said:

All of a sudden beginning shortly before bed last night, my system is crackling, spitting, popping. Between last night and tonight I move and change all sorts of wires, switch DACs, refresh all the settings on the microRendu, reboot microRendu, change software, change software settings, restart my network switch - nothing helps.

 

I remember that there are some beta settings for my network routers, and that one of them, local network DNS caching, has acted up before.  Turn off local network DNS caching, reboot network - everything is perfect.

 

Local network DNS caching.  Of course, intuitively obvious.

 

you are lucky!!   crackling, spitting, & popping usually means that your USB cable has trapped too much noise and the jitter is causing it to jitbug

 

such jitbug "parties" often continue late into the night or early morning, and bsides keep people awake can lure their daughters into the sins of vacuous voltage

 

 


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, crenca said:

 

All true.  I don't know what the uptime stats on Google's or these other DNS providers are, but I bet they are more reliable (much more) than any consumer (i.e. "home") grade equipment and DNS cache.  

 

Putting aside the wider issues of Big Corp data collection/oversight, I was wondering why (barring some oddity in ISP service, etc.) anyone would cache DNS locally in a home networking environment.  DNS is basic backbone stuff  -  why reinvent the wheel with cheap and spotty reliable consumer grade crap?  Jud's friendly comment box Net Admin recommends he turns that crap off, KISS it, etc.  Why he is at it he can get rid of his cable risers, grounding boxes, and dubious formats/encodings as well 😋

 

I know local DNS caching used to be a thing when you were more dependent upon your ISP for DNS.  I can imagine it still speeding things up a bit for people with sub-par ISPs and/or high-latency Internet connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Have you checked the health of your computer? Maybe the HD ?

 

Your have verified it’s not the amp/DAC of cause ? 

 

 


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, A+ -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC ->

Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mrvco said:

 

I know local DNS caching used to be a thing when you were more dependent upon your ISP for DNS.  I can imagine it still speeding things up a bit for people with sub-par ISPs and/or high-latency Internet connections.

20-50msec here or there can add up to a perceptable delay.  Back when I was developing OS code, using a local copy of BIND was the norm, and frankly, if I had multiple boxes, I'd be running BIND (or more recent caching equivalent) on one of them.  WRT Windows -- I don't know what would be best.  Having a local caching server is especially nice when more than one computer is active online.  Also, my BIND would be feeding information about my machines within my domain, but nowadays without incoming connections -- the need for supplying nameservice information to the net is specious.

 

If the name isn't in the cache, then the delay is  pretty much the same as if it was the dip directly into a non-local nameserver.  Some programs do a local cache also -- and that does help mitigate the advantage of a local nameserver.

 

Do many people have less than 20msec latency nowadays? I remember that real T1s/T3s had short delays, but these hyper fancy complex modulation schemes tend to have slightly longer latencies.

 

So, it seems like a local cache is nothing but a benefit (assuming that the cache software is written correctly, and can deal with changes -- whenever they occur.)

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 5:28 PM, Archimago said:

 

Wow. That's pretty bad man...

 

My router has uptimes 100+ days at a time usually just reboot for firmware upgrades. I'll usually reboot Windows 10 with updates typically; every 1-2 weeks maybe.

I think its dependant on the software running. I have numerous CAD packages, both electrical and mechanical running, not only do I have the current versions but due to some customers never upgrading, all the past versions. Doing experiments on numerous machines we found 3 days to be the max we could run a system without issues. So its a habit that's ingrained now. As for the home router its a BT home hub, we find it seams to improve after a good kick up the arse...😀

I've been working on PC's for so long the old habits die hard... That said the music server hasn't been touched for about a year... but all that is running is squeezebox, no keyboard, monitor or mouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vortecjr said:

Jud, where do you currently stand with your issue?

 

Everything works wonderfully after I made a single adjustment to my routers. Thanks very much for asking, Jesus.


One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, A+ -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen (powered by LPS-1) -> Ghent JSSG360 USB cable -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC ->

Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 10:29 PM, Jud said:

All of a sudden beginning shortly before bed last night, my system is crackling, spitting, popping. Between last night and tonight I move and change all sorts of wires, switch DACs, refresh all the settings on the microRendu, reboot microRendu, change software, change software settings, restart my network switch - nothing helps.

 

I remember that there are some beta settings for my network routers, and that one of them, local network DNS caching, has acted up before.  Turn off local network DNS caching, reboot network - everything is perfect.

 

Local network DNS caching.  Of course, intuitively obvious.

 

Murphy's Law rears its ugly head once again. :)


"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted"- William Bruce Cameron

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

20-50msec here or there can add up to a perceptable delay.  Back when I was developing OS code, using a local copy of BIND was the norm, and frankly, if I had multiple boxes, I'd be running BIND (or more recent caching equivalent) on one of them.  WRT Windows -- I don't know what would be best.  Having a local caching server is especially nice when more than one computer is active online.  Also, my BIND would be feeding information about my machines within my domain, but nowadays without incoming connections -- the need for supplying nameservice information to the net is specious.

 

If the name isn't in the cache, then the delay is  pretty much the same as if it was the dip directly into a non-local nameserver.  Some programs do a local cache also -- and that does help mitigate the advantage of a local nameserver.

 

Do many people have less than 20msec latency nowadays? I remember that real T1s/T3s had short delays, but these hyper fancy complex modulation schemes tend to have slightly longer latencies.

 

So, it seems like a local cache is nothing but a benefit (assuming that the cache software is written correctly, and can deal with changes -- whenever they occur.)

 

John

 

I ping 1.1.1.1 (8 hops, Cloudflare) at 12-15ms from my home network connection via Wifi (Comcast).  8.8.8.8 (10 hops, Google) and 75.75.75.75 (7 hops, Comcast) are each a few ms higher on average.  I'm not sure how that translates to actual DNS performance, but as long as the DNS server in question is up and working, the difference between each of these isn't perceptible of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrvco said:

 

I ping 1.1.1.1 (8 hops, Cloudflare) at 12-15ms from my home network connection via Wifi (Comcast).  8.8.8.8 (10 hops, Google) and 75.75.75.75 (7 hops, Comcast) are each a few ms higher on average.  I'm not sure how that translates to actual DNS performance, but as long as the DNS server in question is up and working, the difference between each of these isn't perceptible of course.

If you get that fast a ping time (much faster than my 20-30msec), then it makes little (but still SOME -- transient network issues) difference to use a caching server .  Just checked dig (the interactive dns lookup program) and get 22msec, so it is a little faster than I thought.  I was thinking closer to 25-30msec.

 

Since caching servers are so simple to enable, then why not?  I'd expect that Windows probably has its own local caching, and on Linux derived systems - which is an indirect descendant of the traditional internet machines for over a decade -- all kinds of internet tools are easily available and simple ones are easy to use.

 

When doing one of the crazy WWW pages with nonsense from all over the place WRT advertisements, the delays can add up with a 20msec ping time.  I also use Comcast, but only an 'advertised 60Mbps', but 90 in reality.  Nowadays faster connections are often available, but super fast data rates dont automatically mean fast ping times.

 

So, if you get 10-20msec, then it probably isn't too bad, but at 20msec or more, I'd definitely do local caching just because it is so cheap and easy.  If it was brain surgery to put together a caching server, I'd slough it off -- but caching servers are infinitely more simple to use than Bind, even when using Bind in caching mode (well, if your vendor didn't give you a simple caching config file.)  Of course, nowadays Bind might be easier to config.  The simple caching servers are TRIVIAL to set up -- zero cost, only benefit.

 

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

If you get that fast a ping time (much faster than my 20-30msec), then it makes little (but still SOME -- transient network issues) difference to use a caching server .  Just checked dig (the interactive dns lookup program) and get 22msec, so it is a little faster than I thought.  I was thinking closer to 25-30msec.

 

Since caching servers are so simple to enable, then why not?  I'd expect that Windows probably has its own local caching, and on Linux derived systems - which is an indirect descendant of the traditional internet machines for over a decade -- all kinds of internet tools are easily available and simple ones are easy to use.

 

When doing one of the crazy WWW pages with nonsense from all over the place WRT advertisements, the delays can add up with a 20msec ping time.  I also use Comcast, but only an 'advertised 60Mbps', but 90 in reality.  Nowadays faster connections are often available, but super fast data rates dont automatically mean fast ping times.

 

So, if you get 10-20msec, then it probably isn't too bad, but at 20msec or more, I'd definitely do local caching just because it is so cheap and easy.  If it was brain surgery to put together a caching server, I'd slough it off -- but caching servers are infinitely more simple to use than Bind, even when using Bind in caching mode (well, if your vendor didn't give you a simple caching config file.)  Of course, nowadays Bind might be easier to config.  The simple caching servers are TRIVIAL to set up -- zero cost, only benefit.

 

 

John

 

I think you and @Jud's experience answered your own question.  With typical bandwidth and latency now an order of magnitude better than "real T1's" of your day (and mine in corp IT land), why another point of failure (even though yes, DNS and DNS caching is a relatively simple, perhaps even "trivial" IT exercise) and task being given to rock bottom quality equipment and software?  Since home networking equipment is the equivalent of those cheap earbuds and DAC/amps (made in China with parts that cost mere pennies) that most listen to their 128kbs mp3's on, why are we even discussing the equivalent of asking them to play 24/96 through them and "hear" the difference? 


Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I think you and @Jud's experience answered your own question.  With typical bandwidth and latency now an order of magnitude better than "real T1's" of your day (and mine in corp IT land), why another point of failure (even though yes, DNS and DNS caching is a relatively simple, perhaps even "trivial" IT exercise) and task being given to rock bottom quality equipment and software?  Since home networking equipment is the equivalent of those cheap earbuds and DAC/amps (made in China with parts that cost mere pennies) that most listen to their 128kbs mp3's on, why are we even discussing the equivalent of asking them to play 24/96 through them and "hear" the difference? 

I consider needing an extra external network transaction as being a point of failure or congestion.  If a caching server fails (so easy to fire-up on machines nowadays, and Windows already does the caching -- must be simple), then there are problems that would probably make using a WWW browser impractical :-).  It is just SO easy to put together a caching server if you already have some kind of server on the network, and under Linux or whatever -- it is triival.  Under WIndows, I think that one needs to disable the local caching server if you don't want it (AFAIR.)   A caching server can easily run on the same computer -- in fact, I had historically done that also -- no reason not to run it, like I said.   So, I use a local caching server on the local machine (AFAIR default on windows, and make sure that the version of Linux uses the local caching server, and then an external machine in case you reboot alot.)


* maybe there is a problem with usage of the term 'caching server', because that means any local software/hardware that can cache the DNS.  It is very common to use caching servers on Windows boxes locally?  Is that the problem?  I write servers all of the time -- but I don't need a separate box for them.

 

I truly don't understand the difficulty of running the server...  IMO, it is kind of silly to do DNS lookups for every darned WWW with advertisements.  Of course, I used to run an entire internet server on each one of my machines -- it just isnt a challenge.

 

Also, a local DNS server shouldn't be a local point of failure -- the system (properly designed) goes off and grabs another source if there is a problem.  The major time where there is a problem is when there are problems with the root servers and then problems propagate down, but I seem to remember that (roots having connectivity problems) has bene mitigated.   I'd' suspect that organizations like Comcast might even fake themselves as root servers?  The internet is still the wild west in a lot of ways.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...