That is, if all of those threads have work to do, because the task can be
distributed accordingly. Which is not easy even if you know the number of
cores (threads for that matter) and the whole task is known a priori.
Unfortunately Queries to a DNS-Server like bind do not follow parameters
known a
Michael Graff wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/29/11 9:08 AM, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
>
>> Maybe some bind developer can shed a light on this:
>> Does bind use epoll()?
>> AIO (as in Posix RT extensions)
>
> BIND 9 uses epoll() I
Not neccessarily.
It really depends on many many things. How well does the OS kernel+NIC
driver scale, how good do they work in balancing among all CPUs+cores.
I do not know the inner workings of bind, but depending on the algorithmic
problems, distributed/parallel processing can even degrade per
On Sat, June 18, 2011 18:34, Lyle Giese wrote:
> On 06/18/11 10:21, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
>> That is weird.
>>
>> When I use my own NSes under my own domain, I need to reg them to .org
>> NSes, when I use my registrars NSes I don't.
>>
>> There does
On Sat, June 18, 2011 18:24, Lyle Giese wrote:
> On 06/18/11 09:30, Jorg W. wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> given my domain name is example.net, and my NS servers for example.net
>> are:
>>
>> ns1.example.com
>> ns2.example.com
>>
>> But, example.com itself's NS servers are the registrator's (for
>> exa
That is weird.
When I use my own NSes under my own domain, I need to reg them to .org
NSes, when I use my registrars NSes I don't.
There does not seem to be any technical reason for your scenario (imho).
Regards
-Sven
P.S.: A direct glue of course could reduce the lookup path length and save
r
Even better:
All Mails have complete Mailinglist Headers. Better MUAs can handle those
and unsubscription is just one click away within the MUA ;-).
Regards
-Sven
On Thu, June 2, 2011 21:16, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ...which is posted at the
Hi,
The size of the zone should not be that much of a matter if you use
IFXR. Aside from that, did you ever consider using another mechanism for
synchronization, like rsync or lzmaing the zone and transferring it via
your protocol of choice?
Then again, why would one have a TLD coloc on a 256kbps
There have been quite some posts since my first answer to Wael.
I just wanted to rephrase some stuff etc.
On Tue, February 2, 2010 00:43, Peter Dambier wrote:
> Noel Butler wrote:
>> Firstly, I feel this really belongs on mailops not bind list :)
>> secondly...
>>
>> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 00:00 +0
Dear Wael,
In what way is blocking Port 25 any worse than blocking MX/root queries
for clients? Both solutions neglect the fact, that spam is not a technical
problem.
Some ISPs think it is a good idea to forward you to a search web page,
when you mispell some URL, this is done via DNS. Obviously,
Thanks Nick for the 'insight' of epoll.
Usually I'd expect an application to have a 'knowledge' of which FS were
added to a set for watching. In such a case I would not really expect
any return values indicating that one tried to remove an FD, that was
never added.
Could this indicate a misma
hanks Sven.
so the resource unavailable messages mean nothing?
thanks
Mike
Sven Eschenberg wrote:
Hi there,
Quote:
"ENOENT
op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD or EPOLL_CTL_DEL, and fd is not in epfd. "
It just means, that the poll set was supposed to be modified, but the
descriptor was not pa
Hi there,
Quote:
"ENOENT
op was EPOLL_CTL_MOD or EPOLL_CTL_DEL, and fd is not in epfd. "
It just means, that the poll set was supposed to be modified, but the
descriptor was not part of it. Not really an error, but a condition that
should rather not happen. But it should certainly not be t
Hi Raj,
You could CNAME the needed entries to a new zone, which is then
delegated. AFAIK DNAME should be possible too.
Regards
-Sven
Raj Adhikari schrieb:
Thanks Chris for the reply.
Actually, let me put my question the other way.
How can one delegate the classless subnet to other DNS?
Act
Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb:
On 01.10.09 19:10, Sven Eschenberg wrote:
Funny enough, I did not have any allow-query at all, but adding
allow-query {any;} did indeed change the behavior. But allow-query-cache
obviously defaults to localhost, localnets and was triggering the
behavior that
explicitly
where needed, instead of building on default behavior and everything
works as expected now. Lessen learned: Ignore defaults, always set
things as YOU want them to be :-).
Thanks for your reply though.
Regards
-Sven
Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb:
On 30.09.09 15:59, Sven Eschenberg
ched netowrks, no
allow-query statement, allow recursion.
This seems to work.
I am wondering: Would it be harmfull to allow queries by any host
(globally) as long as external clients (in their view) are not allowed
any recursion? Would that be more feasible?
Regards
-Sven
Sven Eschenberg
-Sven
Sven Eschenberg schrieb:
Dear list,
I have one client with a specific zone. When the client does a query for
localhost on the nameserver, or a reverse lookup for 127.0.0.1,
everything seems perfectly okay. As soon, as the client tries to lookup
i.e. google.de or any external ip, I am
Dear list,
I have one client with a specific zone. When the client does a query for
localhost on the nameserver, or a reverse lookup for 127.0.0.1,
everything seems perfectly okay. As soon, as the client tries to lookup
i.e. google.de or any external ip, I am getting query refused errors.
Se
The problem I am actually facing is, that I don't want to use it in a
specific zone, but basicly in every imaginable zone. No matter which
Query comes in, always respong with IP X.
A normal wildcard setup for a specific zone is pretty obvious and
straight forward.
The search path wouldn't ma
Dear list,
I tried googling about a Catch-All setup for a DNS, with little success.
I tried messing around with some zone/hint files in an isolated setup,
but without any success.
What I am trying to achieve is the following:
No matter which host/name is looked up, the DNS should spit out th
21 matches
Mail list logo
