High load on primary

[Fr34k]

So far, I am not able to find "notify-delay" within:
http://www.isc.org/sw/bind/arm94/

When trying to search on isc.org, I get:
"Sorry, the BIND repository is temporarily unavailable."
... which doesn't make searching easy right now...

google is your friend :)

http://www.unix-news.com/articles/2007/02/26/bind-9-4-0-released
says:
"New zone option “notify-delay”. Specify a minimum delay between sets of NOTIFY
messages."

HTH -- Chris

--- Tom Schmitt <TomSchmitt at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> thank you for this hint. 
> I downloaded Bind 9.4.1 and looked into the doc-files for this config-option,
> but couldn't find anything about notify-delay.
> 
> Could you please give me the location where this option is explained?
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom.
> 
> 
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:55:15 +1000
> Von: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews at isc.org>
> An: "Tom Schmitt" <TomSchmitt at gmx.de>
> CC: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
> Betreff: Re: High load on primary
> 
> > 
> > 	notify-delay (BIND 9.4)
> > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I use Bind 9.3.4 and have a load-problem on my primary DNS-Server.
> > > 
> > > Each morning I have for about three hours a huge amount of dynamic
> > updates 
> > > in serveral zones. This alone is no problem.
> > > 
> > > But I also have several secondaries which all want IXFRs after every
> > update.
> > > These IXFRS seem to produce such a high load on my primary, that several
> > > dynamic-updates get a "timed out" (and the ISC-DHCP only try the update
> > once)
> > > ,
> > > so some PC have no DNS-entry and therefore have a problem.
> > > 
> > > Now my question is how to reduce the CPU-load on my primary. I cannot
> > reduce
> > > the number of dynamic updates nor the number of secondaries.
> > > 
> > > My first try was to add the line "transfers-per-ns 1;" in the
> > options-part of
> > >  
> > > configurationfile on every secondary in order to let them do less IXFRs 
> > > at a given time. But to my (negative) surprise it didn't helped at all.
> > The
> > > number of IXFRs didn't changed nor are they better spread over a bigger
> > > amount of time (which I hoped to gain from this change).
> > > 
> > > Is there any other possibility to reduce the number of IXFR in a given
> > > amount of time?
> > > 
> > > Or is there another idea? (No, I have no bigger server to use)
> > > 
> > > Thanks for any help,
> > > Tom.
> > > -- 
> > > "Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
> > > Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
> > > 
> > > 
> > -- 
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org
> 
> -- 
> "Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ...
> Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
> 
> 
>