On 04/07/11 06:42, mee thun wrote:
> Good Morning..
>
> I am new member in this mailing list. I need help to change the query
> type in the nslookup command.
> The default nslookup using A, but I use ipv6 so the query type must use
> . I don't know how to change the default nslookup from A to
Good Morning..
I am new member in this mailing list. I need help to change the query type
in the nslookup command.
The default nslookup using A, but I use ipv6 so the query type must use
. I don't know how to change the default nslookup from A to
permanently?
_
In theory, what you'd do is set a "fixed" rrset-order, and then
rearrange the actual RRset (e.g. using Dynamic Update) whenever the
loads/availabilities change. You'd need to set your TTL on the RRset
appropriately to ensure that caching resolvers see the changes in a
timely fashion. I'll reite
6.4.2011 4:11, Danny Mayer kirjoitti:
On 4/5/2011 8:05 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message, Dan Mahoney w
rites:
I'm moving one of our DNS servers (Win 2003 R2, v9.7.0) to a new 2008 R2 x6
4
server.
as well, same problem.
Windows Vista and Windows 2008 maps system32 filenames to a different
Issam HARRATHI wrote:
> The result i found with resperf, are not OK for me because when i test
> with tcpreplay ( i monitor packet in and packet out, and i dont see any
> problem in CPU or RAM) i found a maximum throughput less (40%) than what i
> found with resperf.
> Your test was on linux or Uni
> >Or, get a DNS balancer that will send balance the IP addresses sorted in
> >random, but weighed order. Note that there are many technical and
> >logical>problems with DNS balancers.
On 06.04.11 14:21, iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> Do you mean that with rrset-order random i can add w
The result i found with resperf, are not OK for me because when i test with
tcpreplay ( i monitor packet in and packet out, and i dont see any problem in
CPU or RAM) i found a maximum throughput less (40%) than what i found with
resperf.
Your test was on linux or Unix, and which hardware? Do yo
iharrathi@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> Have some one reach the number 10 qps for example. Of course we
During testing - yes I have reached that number. This was with resperf
utility which by default speeds up towards 10. From the man page:
"By default, resperf will send traffic for 60
>Or, get a DNS balancer that will send balance the IP addresses sorted in
>random, but weighed order. Note that there are many technical and
>logical>problems with DNS balancers.
Do you mean that with rrset-order random i can add weight, if yes i don't find
any documents that talks about that (no
Hi,
Is there any limit for bind for handling a big number of qps (query per second).
Have some one reach the number 10 qps for example. Of course we suppose
that i have a very powerfull server, so the problem will not be the materiel,
and do we have to tune BIND (ISC_SOCKET_MAXSOCKET, ISC_S
Thanks Kevin for the answer,
But rrset-order, can only disble the round robin (cyclic=round robin | random=
random | fixed=disable round robin)
And sorlist prioritise basing on IP of the client, i don't see anyway how to
send( for example) 75% of http traffic to bigserver1.mysite.com and 25% of
11 matches
Mail list logo
