timeout value for no response from primary name server
Kevin Darcy
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Tue Sep 28 18:31:44 UTC 1999
It's hard to venture an answer to this question when you haven't indicated
what platform your clients are running. I just tried tests on Solaris 7 and
Win 95 and the fallback was fairly reasonable; about 10-15 seconds for
both, when there is nothing at the first-listed address, and about 5
seconds or less if the first-listed address is active but with nothing
listening to UDP port 53. What platform are you running, that would take 80
seconds to fall back?
- Kevin
Mark Conroy wrote:
> Question for the group,
>
> I need to apply some y2k patches to a solaris system(solaris 2.6) on a
> primary name server. I would like to perform this during the day, which
> means shutting down the system into single user mode. I have a secondary
> name server that resolves if the primary is not there. I am running
> bind 8.1.2.
>
> I performed a test on a test name server, and noticed that when I reboot
> the system, and perform an nslookup on a machine that is using the test
> name server to resolve, it takes about 80 seconds for the request to
> timeout and go to the backup server. In production, I cannot afford
> everyone to be waiting over 80 seconds to get resolved. I noticed that
> with nslookup, I can tweek a couple of the parameters(timeout/retry) to
> lower that. They are set at a default timeout of 5 seconds, and a retry
> of 4 times. With each retry, it doubles the timeout value, so at the
> end of 4 retries, it has waited almost 80 seconds. However, thousands of
> people that are using dns are not using nslookup, they are just trying
> to telnet or ftp.
>
> On page 107 of DNS & BIND(version3), it says that if there are more then
> one name server configured, it queries the first name server in the
> list, with a timeout of 5 seconds, and if it timesout, it will fall back
> to the next name server, waiting 5 seconds. I am not seeing this
> behavior. It waits up to 80 seconds if I am using nslookup or telnet to
> a machine.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark Conroy
>
> ***********************************************************
> * This transmission may contain information that is *
> * privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure *
> * under applicable law. If you are not the intended *
> * recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, *
> * copying, distribution, or use of the information *
> * contained herein (including any reliance thereon) *
> * is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. *
> * *
> * If you received this transmission in error, please *
> * contact the sender and delete the material from any *
> * computer immediately. Thank you. *
> ***********************************************************
More information about the bind-users
mailing list