9.3.2 behavior - explain please
Pavel Urban
urbanp at mlp.cz
Thu Aug 2 05:00:22 UTC 2007
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <f8pa2b$d1v$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Pavel Urban <urbanp at mlp.cz>
> wrote:
>
>> Pavel Urban wrote:
>> > [root at dns ~]# lsof -i udp:53
>> > COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
>> > named 6982 named 20u IPv4 19672544 UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>> > named 6982 named 22u IPv4 19672546 UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>> > named 6993 named 20u IPv4 19672564 UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>> > named 6993 named 21u IPv4 19672566 UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>> >
>> > Strange...
>> >
>>
>> Huh... I can see it now. There were indeed two instances of named. How
>> could that happen I don't know... Thanks a lot!
>
> That's very strange. It's not supposed to be possible for multiple
> processes to bind to the same local address and UDP port. Are you sure
> 6993 and 6982 aren't threads of the same process? On Linux, the PID
> identifies the thread, not the process.
>
No, they were really different processes. One of them didn't know about
the new domain, the second one did. I've killed them both, started named
and there were only one again - acting as it should. Weird.
--
***********************************************************************
Pavel Urban (pavel.urban (at) o2.com)
O2 system disaster
Telefonica O2 Czech Republic, a.s. - www.cz.o2.com
***********************************************************************
Vegetables should not operate electronic equipment.
Computer Stupidities, http://rinkworks.com/stupid/
***********************************************************************
More information about the bind-users
mailing list