Known issue being tracked as RT #29872.
In message <4ffd89c1.4080...@kit.edu>, "Harald A. Irmer" writes:
> Hi all,
>
> This just happened on our nameserver:
>
> 11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.711 general: info: received control channel command
> 'reload'
> 11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.712 general: info: loading
Sorry for the repeat post.. but I know that the value of 'recursive-clients'
option is based on:
1. Query rate
2. RAM size
and various other factors. I vaguely recollect that it is
90 x x , but I forgot why...
I searched earlier posts but noticed that people are recommending it to just
incr
I am doing load testing on our local caching dns.But while doing it , i
added google dns and some other dns ips as forwarder to test QPS.
Even if I am not using any forwarder in that case also, I am having
those same error which i was getting.
I am confusing that those errors are due to bind
In message , Barry
Margolin writes:
> In article ,
> "Michael Hoskins (michoski)" wrote:
>
> > while it's largely personal preference -- i generally like to "be
> > conservative in what i send, and liberal in what i accept":
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
>
> This
In article ,
"Michael Hoskins (michoski)" wrote:
> while it's largely personal preference -- i generally like to "be
> conservative in what i send, and liberal in what i accept":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
This doesn't refer to quantity, but to how strictly you shoul
-Original Message-
From: Ted Mittelstaedt
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:26 AM
To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org"
Subject: Survey - how many people running ISP nameservers
define "minimal-responses" - was Re: What is the deal on missing
"Authority Section" and "additional section" fr
Great answers to my question, thanks!
So now, what do you guys all run?
I have always followed the principle of "provide the most information
possible and let the users decide what to ignore" which is why I never
gave a second thought to providing additional data.
But if as Warren said:
"...Ma
Hi Ben,
At 05:37 11-07-2012, Ben wrote:
Actually, I am doing load testing with my CACHING DNS SERVER, and
for that i setup one client machine which sent queries to CACHING
DNS SERVER, and while doing this , i got below given erros in log.So
is point to any network problem or any fine tunning /
> This just happened on our nameserver:
>
> 11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.711 general: info: received control channel command
> 'reload'
> 11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.712 general: info: loading configuration from
> '/etc/named.conf'
> 11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.891 general: critical: server.c:4436: fatal error:
> 11-J
On Jul 11, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 7/10/2012 6:37 PM, Michael Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> From: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:24 PM
>> To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org"
>> Subject: What is the deal on missing "Authority
On 10/07/12 13:08, Phil Mayers wrote:
> On 10/07/12 12:56, Shon Stephens wrote:
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> I am not being hit with a Denial of Service attack and the query
>> logging doesn't appear to be any different from other hosts in the DNS
>> complex. There are no errors in logs or messages fil
Hi all,
This just happened on our nameserver:
11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.711 general: info: received control channel command
'reload'
11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.712 general: info: loading configuration from
'/etc/named.conf'
11-Jul-2012 13:54:01.891 general: critical: server.c:4436: fatal error:
11-Jul-2
Hi,
On Jul 10, 2012, at 2:25 AM, Ben wrote:
Hi,
We deploy BIND 9.8.2rc1-RedHat-9.8.2-0.10.rc1.el6 and trying to do load test
while doing it we got so many erros logs in named.run.
I must admit to being a little confused…
It *looks* to me like you are forwarding all queries to 8.8.8.8? (If
On 7/11/12, bind-users-requ...@lists.isc.org
wrote:
> Send bind-users mailing list submissions to
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or
On Jul 10 2012, Evan Hunt wrote:
>Well, I have to take that back. As far as I can see the -k option of
>named-checkzone has no effect at all, despite the man page, at least
>with BIND 9.8.3-P1.
>
Thank you. Maybe this will be fixed?
It would be great to have named-checkzone be an authoritative
On 7/10/2012 6:37 PM, Michael Hoskins (michoski) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ted Mittelstaedt
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:24 PM
To: "bind-users@lists.isc.org"
Subject: What is the deal on missing "Authority Section" and
"additionalsection" from google's DNS servers?
16 matches
Mail list logo
