If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
98 Guy wrote in :
Your testing looks thorough, but why do you conclude that a hosts file works best? Because it happens at the TCP/IP stack level - and it's a sledge hammer when it comes to absolutely blocking your machine from being able to contact any host of your choosing. Ok, but bear in mind that's still a file access, and that's one of the slowest events in any machine. A door may have an awesome lock, but it also pays to watch the hinges. A hosts file may also be vulnerable to attack itself, an expected target, but I won't argue for or against the logic of that because vigilance tends to fix all, and you're certainly vigilant. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
98 Guy wrote in :
And even more - any host that you access frequently you can "hard-code" it's IP address in your hosts file - giving you ultra-fast DNS lookups. That helps, even when the file access time is taken into account. I've never tried to quantify it, but on the other hand that might apply more generally, using an IP directly in other tools. (It seems to me that if the hosts file can be edited at will, and the edited version when saved becomes current, that file access really might be an issue, and might account for reports of slowness when using one. I've never used a large one so I can't confirm that, but Proxomitron will load a list manually into RAM, speeding accesses. I guess a hosts file will be cached, but that might only be a consistent speed advantage if it does not have to re-fetch it from file much). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
98 Guy wrote in :
I've always scratched my head over the claim that a large hosts file can bog a system down. I can see why, as I said, but I don't know if that's even the reason others have given. Maybe they just flooded theirs with domains and not IP's. DNS resolution takes time, even more than file accesses. It seems to be true that Win-XP (and higher?) have problems with large hosts files (I think anything larger than 135 kb) and on the MVPS-hosts web-site they say that the "DNS Server Service" running on NT-based systems has issues (or is outright incompatible with) large hosts files - and they recommend that the service be disabled. I really don't see the benefit of running that service (on the XP systems that I set up at $Dayjob) and it's one of many services that I disable. As far as performance on a win-98 system, I have to say that I can detect no performance degradation by having a hosts file pushing 1 mb in size. If DNSBench.exe is an accurate tool when it comes to measuring DNS performace and hosts-file interference, then again the fastest servers are operating in the 10 to 20 ms range - pretty much the theoretical minimum for my DSL connection. Ok, sounds fair enough. While file accesses are 'slow', context is everything. Their speed is usually considered in the context of local API behaviour, not network delays. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
98 Guy wrote in :
On the other hand, so can huge amounts of RegEx filters in Proxomitron, but there is a middle ground. Did you try it and reject it? If so, why? I've never tried proxomitron. I find it easier and faster to edit a text file. That can be arranged... Prox uses plain text for configs, filters, lists etc, and you can reload all from Prox's controls when done. Worth a look, say I.. Sometimes I will access my router's http admin interface and bring up the out-going logs to see what hosts my browser has been talking to when I browse any given website. I find that I can see hosts there in the log that I can't or don't see when I look at the http source-code of the page or site or the bottom info bar of the browser. That's a good source of info. Could be used for host files or Prox blocklists with equal effect. One thing Prox does well is a log window. But another is setting bounds on its RegEx that speed things up a lot, especially in combination with all accesses being RAM based once its filters are loaded. I know that if I was running an out-bound firewall that I would see that info there as well (or at least theoretically I should) but I've also never bothered with a firewall because I see pretty much zero value in running it full-time on any of my win-98 systems. I haven't done exhaustive tests on LnS Firewall, but a quick look at a task manger (ATM, Italian program by Enrico Del Fante) shows it eating less than a basic wav player API demo, so I never begrudge it being there. If it had been hungry and ineffective like Zone Alarm I would have. I wouldn't want too many things running, but a couple of tools that will save me from having to relearn other methods if I ever change the browser or FTP system are worth having. I see it as if it were WXP with a couple of daemons (services) used, but unlike WXP, I get to choose which ones, and am not bound to the OS either. Specific to LnS, I like the ability it has to learn a program's identity and pass or block net access according to that, or prompt me if it doesn't already know. Given that some problems are more easily solved that way, than by determining differences between remote addresses accessed by it, it's a powerful extra tool to have, and something a hosts file (or a Prox blocklist) cannot do. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
: I know that if I was running an out-bound firewall that I would see that info there as well (or at least theoretically I should) but I've also never bothered with a firewall because I see pretty much zero value in running it full-time on any of my win-98 systems. Sometimes (but not often) I want to see the raw packet that came in or out, and LnS's log window lets me do that. Even if it isn't often, it's totally cool to be able to do that amongst all else it offer, and it really does sit there like a magic guard dog that rarely needs to eat, and never bothers me without need. I'm all for vigilance, but I sure as hell like to delegate that, and LnS is one I trust with it. I tried lots before I chose it, too. It was the one that meant I didn't have to keep looking, or wondering if a firewall was wasting my time or that of my machine. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 23:05:34 -0400, 98 Guy put finger to
keyboard and composed: And even more - any host that you access frequently you can "hard-code" it's IP address in your hosts file - giving you ultra-fast DNS lookups. Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this slow down your browser? For example, let's assume that a particular page at seagate.com contains an offsite reference to nexus.ensighten.com. If the hosts file contains "nexus.ensighten.com", then AFAICS the browser does not need to bother with a DNS lookup. OTOH, if the hosts file contains only numeric IP addresses, then a DNS lookup would be necessary to resolve the domain name. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
98 Guy wrote:
Bill in Co wrote: Just out of curiosity, why are you still using FF 2.0? You can run FF 3.5 with KernelEx I tried running several versions of FF 3 about 1.5 to 2 years ago and found that when scrolling a web-page up and down that a white line would appear across any bit-mapped images on the page where they were cut off by the frame before being scrolled up or down. snip But honestly, I find that FF 2.0.0.20 works VERY WELL on 99% of the web sites that I browse to. I was a bit more curious about this. So are you able to order anything from amazon.com using version 2.0? The OP seemed to suggest he couldn't, use the FF 2.0 version, (or use it for YouTube, for that matter, which you may not use). I'm just curious what sites might have issues. I suppose some online banking sites might complain, too. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Because it happens at the TCP/IP stack level Ok, but bear in mind that's still a file access, and that's one of the slowest events in any machine. Do you know how fast a typical computer can load and parse a 1-mb file - vs the time it takes to perform even a single DNS query? But even beyond that, the HOSTS file seems to get read only once per client application. For example, if I open an instance of FireFox, that instance will be using what-ever version of the hosts file that existed at the time firefox was started. If I edit or delete the hosts file while that instance is running, it has no effect on that instance. Firefox continues to operate as if the original hosts file is still present. Even if I open more tabs and browse to new sites, the pre-existing hosts file is still in effect. If I keep this instance of FF running and open a new instance, the new instance will behave according to what-ever changes I've made to the hosts file. So it seems to be that each application has it's own version of the hosts file cached for it somewhere in memory, which is loaded at the time the application is started. A hosts file may also be vulnerable to attack itself, It's been known that malware will mess with the hosts file. But that takes us back into the realm of Win-98 vs Win-NT in terms of malware exposure and vulnerability - a realm where win-98 has always been inherently superior (if only because of simplicity - or because of dumb luck and not by design). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Franc Zabkar wrote:
And even more - any host that you access frequently you can "hard-code" it's IP address in your hosts file - giving you ultra-fast DNS lookups. Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't this slow down your browser? No, because (as I explained in my previous post) the hosts file appears to be cached in memory, making for very fast access. I would argue that even if the system had to read in the entire hosts file each and every time a DNS request was performed, that reading a 1 mb file on a typical system today is faster than performing a DNS query. (it helps that file-caching would play a role in that). For example, let's assume that a particular page at seagate.com contains an offsite reference to nexus.ensighten.com. If the hosts file contains "nexus.ensighten.com", then AFAICS the browser does not need to bother with a DNS lookup. The browser will always do a DNS lookup when it needs to. It doesn't know anything about the hosts file (if it exists, or what's in it and what's not in it, etc). OTOH, if the hosts file contains only numeric IP addresses, then a DNS lookup would be necessary to resolve the domain name. If I know that www.google.com resolves to 123.45.67.89, then if I have this line in my hosts file: 123.45.67.88 www.google.com Then my system would never perform an external DNS query for www.google.com. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
RSS feed reader
Bill in Co wrote:
But honestly, I find that FF 2.0.0.20 works VERY WELL on 99% of the web sites that I browse to. I was a bit more curious about this. So are you able to order anything from amazon.com using version 2.0? Amazon.com would probably want me to order from Amazon.ca. But I've never ordered anything from Amazon. I have ordered on-line from Tiger Direct using FF 2 within the past year. The OP seemed to suggest he couldn't, use the FF 2.0 version, (or use it for YouTube, for that matter, which you may not use). I have no problem accessing and playing videos on youtube.com using FF 2. I'm just curious what sites might have issues. I have problems with Hotmail (now known as "Live Mail" for some time). I have a few dummy / throw-away e-mail accounts on Hotmail, and a year+ ago I noticed some major problems accessing it using FF2. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I can bring up the list of mail in my in-box but maybe I couldn't view any particular e-mail (or maybe I couldn't compose or send any new e-mail or reply to existing ones). I have some dummy accounts on yahoo and gmail and they work just fine with FF2. If I recall correctly, I don't think I could get gmail's "voice call" feature working, but I'm not sure if that's a problem with the browser or with win-98. Voice-call allows you to call a land-line while you're logged into your gmail account. You need a working set of speakers and microphone (preferrably a head-set) to make the call. You need to download and run some sort of app or add-on for this. I suppose some online banking sites might complain, too. I perform some on-line banking using FF2 (credit-card balance and statement look-ups at one bank, and I "pay bills" on-line by logging into a second bank's website). Within the past year I've bought airline tickets and rented rental cars using FF2. I access several internet domain registrars (namescheap and network solutions) to change / alter DNS records using FF2. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Data Feed inn Excel Form | S1L1Y1 | General | 10 | March 28th 08 09:45 PM |
Data Feed in Excel form | S1L1Y1 | General | 0 | March 27th 08 09:19 PM |
PDF Reader | Dapper Dan | General | 19 | April 11th 07 02:18 PM |
RSS Reader | Stan | General | 1 | August 27th 06 10:19 PM |
adding rss feed | Bob | General | 0 | June 20th 06 11:14 PM |