On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:13:50AM +0100, Cathy Almond wrote:
> On 02/08/12 19:00, Michael Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Peter Olsson <p...@leissner.se>
> > Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:25 AM
> > To: Cathy Almond <cat...@isc.org>
> > Cc: "bind-users@lists.isc.org" <bind-users@lists.isc.org>
> > Subject: Re: What does "deleted from unreachable cache" mean?
> >
> >> Excellent information, thanks!
> >
> > Agreed. I really appreciate the effort ISC has put into the KB.
> >
> >> However, it is worrying that the master sometimes is unreachable.
> >> Is there some way I can make the slave server log, with timestamp,
> >> what zone it was trying to refresh when it failed?
> >
> > Not sure if you've already tried, but do you have xfer logging enabled?
> >
> > logging {
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > channel audit_log {
> >
> > file "/var/named/bind/named.log";
> > severity debug;
> > print-time yes;
> >
> > };
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > category xfer-in { audit_log; };
> > category xfer-out { audit_log; };
> > category notify { audit_log; };
> > category network { audit_log; };
> > category update { audit_log; };
> > // might want this to debug...
> > //category queries { audit_log; };
> >
> > };
>
> The point at which the 'unreachable' entry is cached, is logged under
> category 'xfer-in' - although it doesn't actually tell you that it's
> caching it. Look for messages containing text "failed to connect" or
> "could not refresh".
>
> Once the master is already in the unreachable cache, if the refresh code
> checks and finds it there, then there are several messages (different
> circumstances) that explain why a transfer isn't going to happen right
> then - and these ones all incorporate the text "unreachable (cached)".
>
> But yesterday, I dug further into the code that's reporting "deleted
> from unreachable cache" and I'm sorry that I have to report that there
> is a bug there - the code is matching the source of the notify
> correctly, but may also mistakenly include and report on older cache
> entries that are already "deleted".
>
> We'll fix this. It's being tracked as bug ticket #30501.
>
> But if you have no evidence of ongoing problems (looking at what's
> logged in category xfer-in - per my suggestions above) then you can
> safely ignore these messages. There will have been an issue at some
> point in the past, but which is now cleared.
>
> Apologies.
I will try logging, but it's good to know that it might not
be a big problem.
Thanks!
--
Peter Olsson p...@leissner.se
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
