do i need hostsman ?

[Cereberus]

Currently i'm using umatrix and ublock for browsing on both chrome and firefox.

only recently did i try using hostsman and use it to update sources from MVPS hosts, hphosts (adware only) etc.... basically the same as the list that umatrix is using.

so ublock+umatrix only covers the browser usage to block those in the list. whereas hostsman will block on the entire machine. so any point in running both these combinations together or does it just create unecessary latency of sorts ?

also i read somewhere that hosts not meant to be used this way, so should instead convert it to dns to be added to router dnsmasq or something like that.

any ideas on this ?

[Nastrahl]

Using the hosts file is system wide but the bigger the file is more RAM is taken by the the DNS cache service. Plus is takes time for the service to initialize and so your connection to establish at boot time (then no more wait until you flush the DNS cache). You wouldn't disable the DNS service because then the system will do a DNS request EVERYTIME you establish a connection somewhere, which will cause "latency".

The good about browser extentions that they hide ads placeholders.

Hosts file IS actually meant to be used this way this it's the ancestor of DNS.

[Cereberus]

Using the hosts file is system wide but the bigger the file is more RAM is taken by the the DNS cache service. Plus is takes time for the service to initialize and so your connection to establish at boot time (then no more wait until you flush the DNS cache). You wouldn't disable the DNS service because then the system will do a DNS request EVERYTIME you establish a connection somewhere, which will cause "latency".

The good about browser extentions that they hide ads placeholders.

Hosts file IS actually meant to be used this way this it's the ancestor of DNS.

so do you suggest i keep using hostsman to load stuff like mvps list, as a secondary failsafe ?

or only umatrix + ublock just for browser surfing protection :s ?

PS: looking at my 16gb ram seems i'm at 46% so lots of leg room still.

[VileTouch]

hosts file is not meant to block every single ad out there. use it to make sure a malicious site you usually dance around is blocked at all times. so no point blocking something that you're not at risk of stepping on.

[212eta]

Better use a Malware Domain Filter

than a bloated HOSTS file... ;)

[Cereberus]

just noticed that facebook had issues loading. only after i restored host files to default backup did it work again.

so seems that using hostsman in a limited fashion works best meaning i'll rely on umatrix and ublock for the hostnames to block which are adaware and malicious :x so only thing i'd use hostsman for is to check for dupes, or scan host files :x only.

cause seems if hostsmans also does it, some weird stuff happens.

[Nastrahl]

Using the hosts file is system wide but the bigger the file is more RAM is taken by the the DNS cache service. Plus is takes time for the service to initialize and so your connection to establish at boot time (then no more wait until you flush the DNS cache). You wouldn't disable the DNS service because then the system will do a DNS request EVERYTIME you establish a connection somewhere, which will cause "latency".

The good about browser extentions that they hide ads placeholders.

Hosts file IS actually meant to be used this way this it's the ancestor of DNS.

so do you suggest i keep using hostsman to load stuff like mvps list, as a secondary failsafe ?

or only umatrix + ublock just for browser surfing protection :s ?

PS: looking at my 16gb ram seems i'm at 46% so lots of leg room still.

I suggest you to only use your browser adblock then add the hosts of ads of programs that may show them (like skype) into your firewall to block it.

My personal taste is to use the hosts file in last resort.