Ah, true, thanks! I guess it was a bit too late already last night…
Here now the outcome of having my tests run overnight:
| Nameserver | Domain | Client set ECS | Unique servers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8.4.4 | pool.ntp.org | no | 24 |
| 9.9.9.9 | pool.ntp.org | no | 51 |
| 9.9.9.9 | pool.ntp.org | yes | 49 |
| 9.9.9.9 | sg.pool.ntp.org | no | 24 |
| 9.9.9.9 | asia.pool.ntp.org | no | 152 |
So pool.ntp.org is better than the country zone in this case - at least with certain nameservers. It looks like 9.9.9.9 is causing the mixing in of a few servers from neighboring countries, I guess maybe due to their design for privacy, trying to hide clients’ locations from upstream nameservers. The country zone really only returns servers from that zone, even with 9.9.9.9. And the continent zone stays somewhat short of the full amount of servers that supposedly are in that zone. I guess the more servers there are in a zone, the more smaller ones (lower netspeed) kind of get “squeezed out” by the ones with larger netspeeds/shares.
Below the country mix for the servers returned by 9.9.9.9 for the global zone.
So looks like the recommendation for the global zone is still somewhat right, though it depends on the nameserver used, not really much better, and certainly way below the large number of servers in the global pool overall. I.e., certainly not the silver bullet some of us, including myself, were hoping for/expecting. Continent zone might be a bit better as far as number of servers are concerned. But that also yielded some servers with delay greater than 300ms, and noticeable offset values of 30+ ms.
@bas, let’s hope we don’t need to wait too much longer to see our dreams of an improved GeoDNS service come true. Though I fully trust @ask is aware of the various issues, as hinted at in various threads in this forum, where he describes his ideas for changes, e.g., also addressing the concerns raised in the paper and illustrated by these tests. And that he is working diligently on addressing them, balancing his available resources with the priorities, first one being keeping the pool service stable, as in available.
1 45.76.218.37 JP, Japan
2 122.248.201.177 SG, Singapore
2 167.179.119.205 JP, Japan
2 18.180.64.47 JP, Japan
3 122.215.240.51 JP, Japan
3 223.255.185.3 HK, Hong Kong
4 118.143.17.82 HK, Hong Kong
4 202.181.103.212 JP, Japan
5 45.11.104.223 HK, Hong Kong
7 103.214.22.185 AU, Australia
7 157.119.101.135 HK, Hong Kong
9 203.9.150.169 HK, Hong Kong
16 172.105.204.105 JP, Japan
17 47.243.51.23 HK, Hong Kong
19 133.130.121.141 JP, Japan
30 172.104.34.44 SG, Singapore
30 45.77.20.103 JP, Japan
31 128.199.243.248 SG, Singapore
37 129.150.48.1 SG, Singapore
37 202.182.111.234 JP, Japan
42 106.10.186.201 SG, Singapore
49 160.16.113.133 JP, Japan
64 106.10.186.200 SG, Singapore
69 194.36.178.157 SG, Singapore
74 119.28.230.190 HK, Hong Kong
76 139.162.96.56 JP, Japan
80 165.173.8.64 SG, Singapore
102 51.79.159.86 SG, Singapore
129 45.77.243.81 SG, Singapore
147 137.184.250.82 SG, Singapore
213 118.189.187.101 SG, Singapore
245 17.253.84.253 HK, Hong Kong
428 209.58.185.100 HK, Hong Kong
458 47.241.41.246 SG, Singapore
466 144.126.242.176 SG, Singapore
472 133.243.238.243 JP, Japan
488 167.172.70.21 SG, Singapore
494 203.123.48.1 SG, Singapore
504 129.250.35.250 US, United States
518 129.250.35.251 US, United States
521 172.104.44.120 SG, Singapore
553 133.243.238.163 JP, Japan
564 94.237.79.110 SG, Singapore
573 45.125.1.20 HK, Hong Kong
881 167.71.195.165 SG, Singapore
924 218.186.3.36 SG, Singapore
962 61.239.100.17 HK, Hong Kong
3284 23.106.249.200 SG, Singapore
4139 52.148.114.188 SG, Singapore
8531 162.159.200.123 IP Address not found
8552 162.159.200.1 IP Address not found