So, check this little idea that I have - I want to browse the internet without all sorts of unscrupulous actors collecting every little bit of metadata on me and my family they can possibly get their hands on.
That’s only for a single case comparison. You can’t draw statistically meaningful conclusions about what percentage of traffic the pihole has blocked over a longer period of time.
Correct. The payload of DNS requests is tiny compared to, say requesting a webpage. So there might not be a huge decrease of bandwidth usage reduction. However, having 66.6% less DNS requests is still a win. The router/gateway doesn’t have to work that hard because of the dropped requests.
It isn’t so much about the payload of the DNS requests, but about the content that would have been loaded if the DNS request hadn’t been blocked.
If you load a page that has 100kB of useful information, but 1MB of banner ads and trackers … you’ve blocked a lot more than 66%. But if you block 1MB of banner ads on a page that hosts a 200MB video, you’ve blocked a lot less.
Also a 66% blocked percentage seems very high. I have installed pihole on 2 networks, and I’m seeing 1.7% on my own network, but I do run uBlock on almost everything which catches most stuff before it reaches the pihole, and 25% on the other network.
on my own network a whopping 66.6% of all traffic is blocked
I stated it’s actually 66.6% DNS requests being blocked, not the raw bandwidth utilization.
Raw bandwidth savings (by not downloading the non-zero ads) would be much lesser.
No, raw bandwidth savings would likely be very significant. You do realize that for many webpages the ads are most of the bandwidth? On my network (I have capped internet so this is important) if I run dns ad blocking my total bandwidth is 40% less.
I’m not sure whether it makes sense trying to discuss with you but let’s try…
You couldn’t know how much traffic you saved because you didn’t load the ad. The ad could be 1KB, 1MB or 1GB, but because you didn’t load it you wouldn’t know it’s size. Without knowing it’s size, you wouldn’t be able to calculate the savings.
As mentioned somewhere is in the thread you would have to directly compare two machines visiting the same pages and even then it’s probably only approximate because both machines might get served different ads.
I’ve compared average monthly bandwidth before and after implementation of dns based ad blocking and it has reduced my usage from anywhere from 33% to 45%.
They have been implying that ad blocking only saves the dns request, which is the most ridiculous ignorant claim I’ve ever seen.
Misleading statement. It doesn’t block “traffic”, it blocks DNS requests… you don’t know how much traffic this corresponds to.
You can easily find out. 2 machines (even virtual machines) one set it’s DNS to the PiHole, one not.
Both hit the same sites in the same order. Compare network traffic.
That’s only for a single case comparison. You can’t draw statistically meaningful conclusions about what percentage of traffic the pihole has blocked over a longer period of time.
Correct. The payload of DNS requests is tiny compared to, say requesting a webpage. So there might not be a huge decrease of bandwidth usage reduction. However, having 66.6% less DNS requests is still a win. The router/gateway doesn’t have to work that hard because of the dropped requests.
It isn’t so much about the payload of the DNS requests, but about the content that would have been loaded if the DNS request hadn’t been blocked.
If you load a page that has 100kB of useful information, but 1MB of banner ads and trackers … you’ve blocked a lot more than 66%. But if you block 1MB of banner ads on a page that hosts a 200MB video, you’ve blocked a lot less.
Also a 66% blocked percentage seems very high. I have installed pihole on 2 networks, and I’m seeing 1.7% on my own network, but I do run uBlock on almost everything which catches most stuff before it reaches the pihole, and 25% on the other network.
I run a handful of instances across different networks, 1.7% is suspiciously low, you should make sure you’ve got the right lists. I like HageZi’s
Of course, because ads have zero bandwidth. /s
Are you an idiot?
As per the article
I stated it’s actually 66.6% DNS requests being blocked, not the raw bandwidth utilization. Raw bandwidth savings (by not downloading the non-zero ads) would be much lesser.
Can’t we be nicer on the internet?
No, raw bandwidth savings would likely be very significant. You do realize that for many webpages the ads are most of the bandwidth? On my network (I have capped internet so this is important) if I run dns ad blocking my total bandwidth is 40% less.
I’m not sure whether it makes sense trying to discuss with you but let’s try…
You couldn’t know how much traffic you saved because you didn’t load the ad. The ad could be 1KB, 1MB or 1GB, but because you didn’t load it you wouldn’t know it’s size. Without knowing it’s size, you wouldn’t be able to calculate the savings.
As mentioned somewhere is in the thread you would have to directly compare two machines visiting the same pages and even then it’s probably only approximate because both machines might get served different ads.
I’ve compared average monthly bandwidth before and after implementation of dns based ad blocking and it has reduced my usage from anywhere from 33% to 45%.
They have been implying that ad blocking only saves the dns request, which is the most ridiculous ignorant claim I’ve ever seen.