Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 23:20:32 -0600 From: D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com> To: Andy Farkas <andyf@speednet.com.au> Cc: Mark.Andrews@isc.org, stable at FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: named connections "in vain" Message-ID: <20020404232032.A26028@sheol.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0204051307520.39553-100000@backup.af.speednet.com.au>; from andyf@speednet.com.au on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:15:14PM %2B1000 References: <200204050259.g352xAx73104@drugs.dv.isc.org> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0204051307520.39553-100000@backup.af.speednet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 05, at 01:15 PM, Andy Farkas wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 Mark.Andrews@isc.org wrote:
>
> > > Named is replying to itself, not a client, ie. the host at 192.168.16.2
> > > made a request to 192.168.16.2 which timed-out.
> >
> > You can have *both* the server and clients on the same box.
>
> Yes. What I really meant to say is "named is replying to a client on the
> same host, ie...." - I had meant to come back and amend that sentance on
> my original email but forgot...
>
> > > I think it has something to do with the resolver library having a short
> > > time-out value and named having a longer one.
> >
> > The resolver timeout is large enough that for 99.99% of queries
> > where there is not misconfiguration or otherwise broken server
> > involved in the resolution process it will complete before
> > the resolver gives up. Multiple broken servers can cause the
> > resolution process to exceed the timeouts of the resolver.
>
> So, the main reason why my mailserver spits out these log-in-vain messages
> all the time is because of other broken name servers? I thought so...
OK, that's as I had theorized, too.
> > > Do you know if in fact there are separate time-out values for the resolver
> > > library and named?
> >
> > Yes they are different.
>
> Hmmm... what if you bumbed up the resolvers' time-out value? Where would
> one find this parameter?
Aye, and thar's the rub, eh?
The Cricket book makes no mention of changing these timeouts, though it
does go to some length in explaining them. Well, one of 'em, anyway.
I haven't cracked into the code yet, but that's pro'lly where we're
headed, no? Having said that, coupled with the conclusions already laid
down, I'm not inclined to, even if I find 'em. If we're talking about
any number of externals failing, then anything tweaked tomorrow may well
be wrong for next week. The dog ain't worth chasing 'round that much.
> ps. if this is too off-topic, let me know...
Right on track as far as I'm concerned. You've confirmed my suspicions,
and augmented them, as well. I guess I'll be living with these messages,
and that's fine, now knowing why they're occurring.
> Andy Farkas
Thanks for the thread, guys.
Dave
--
______________________ ______________________
\__________________ \ D. J. HAWKEY JR. / __________________/
\________________/\ hawkeyd@visi.com /\________________/
http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020404232032.A26028>