Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 18:48:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu (Charles Henrich) Cc: davidg@Root.COM, henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu, freebsd-bugs@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: bin/402: w -n doesnt work as advertised. Message-ID: <199505140148.SAA01103@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199505132230.PAA14104@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Charles Henrich" at May 13, 95 06:30:25 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > I modified w.c to attempt to figure out the ip address of the hosts > > > that were non-IP. Because some folks might need an option to make w > > > not do any resolver lookups, I also added -l which mirrors the > > > the existing -n flag, and ensures no nameserver calls get executed. > > > > Actually, I strongly dislike the 4.4 "w" doing nameserver lookups by > > default. On any reasonable system that has > 20 users on it, it can take > > anywhere from several seconds to several minutes for the w output to finish. > > In my opinion, the default for w should be reverted back to the old behavior > > of trusting what is in wtmp. > > Must be a slow nameserver? Most local nameervers will cache all retrieved data > for an hour to a day, given that the responses should 80% of the time come from > your local nameserver. I never have any problems with the lookups, w never > takes even a second to run. Try it on a box that has people coming in from behind firewalls, on freefall we have several users whos DNS reverse lookup is hidden by one thing or another and doing a ``w'' on freefall while one of them is logged in is quite painful. For machines that don't have such wide access you won't ever see this problem, but it does exist. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199505140148.SAA01103>