Comment on The Beauty Of Having A Pi-hole · Den Delimarsky
xavier666@lemm.ee 1 month agoAs per the article
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.
Can’t we be nicer on the internet?
rusticus@lemm.ee 1 month ago
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.
sonstwas@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
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.
rusticus@lemm.ee 1 month ago
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%.
You have been implying that ad blocking only saves the dns request, which is the most ridiculous ignorant claim I’ve ever seen.