>
> Why not try the latest version, really? Pick a test host. Install
> 9.8.1+.
> Time it again. Then let's talk.
Such things take time.
Did it now, but it didn't changed anything.
It seemes that the performance optimization (which is mentioned in the
releasenotes for startup) doesn't affec
> > I have not the slightest clue why, I had suspected that rndc reconfig
> > would be much faster, especially is there is no altering in the
> > config at all.
>
>
> How are you testing this?
>
> 'time rndc reconfing'?
Yes.
> Or do you stop answering queries and time that?
No.
> How l
On 9/27/11 1:15 PM, "Warren Kumari" wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Tom Schmitt wrote:
>> I tested "rndc reload" against "rndc reconfig" on five differrent servers,
>> Solaris and Linux, 9.8.0 and 9.4.1. On all servers the same result:
>> Both commands take roughly the same amount of time! S
On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Tom Schmitt wrote:
>
>> In this case "rndc reconfig" should be sufficient. This command tells
>> BIND to re-read config file and load all new zones without touching
>> any previously loaded zones.
>
> This was my understanding (after reading the text from rndc) as w
> In this case "rndc reconfig" should be sufficient. This command tells
> BIND to re-read config file and load all new zones without touching
> any previously loaded zones.
This was my understanding (after reading the text from rndc) as well.
But to my surprise:
I tested "rndc reload" against "r
2011/9/27 Tom Schmitt :
>
>
>> It is not clear in your question, are you use "rndc reload" or "rndc
>> reload zone.name"? Latter will be faster in case if you change one or
>> few zones in one pass of your updating-script.
>
> I generate from my database the complete named.conf, especially includin
> It is not clear in your question, are you use "rndc reload" or "rndc
> reload zone.name"? Latter will be faster in case if you change one or
> few zones in one pass of your updating-script.
I generate from my database the complete named.conf, especially including new
zones and then trigger a
2011/9/27 Tom Schmitt :
>
>> > I just updated a couple of my DNS-servers from the rather old version
>> > 9.4.1 to a newer version 9.8.0-P4.
>> >
>> > After this I have problem with outages. Looking into it, I found that
>> > the time for a "rndc reload" has nearly doubled!
>>
>> This has been poin
> > I just updated a couple of my DNS-servers from the rather old version
> > 9.4.1 to a newer version 9.8.0-P4.
> >
> > After this I have problem with outages. Looking into it, I found that
> > the time for a "rndc reload" has nearly doubled!
>
> This has been pointed out to me before; do you re
On 9/26/11 12:48 AM, "Tom Schmitt" wrote:
> I just updated a couple of my DNS-servers from the rather old version 9.4.1 to
> a newer version 9.8.0-P4.
You want to get another cup of coffee, and plan an upgrade to 9.8.1 -- isn't
adminspotting fun? :-)
> After this I have problem with outages. Lo
On 26/09/11 08:48, Tom Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
I just updated a couple of my DNS-servers from the rather old version
9.4.1 to a newer version 9.8.0-P4.
After this I have problem with outages. Looking into it, I found that
the time for a "rndc reload" has nearly doubled!
This has been pointed out t
Hi,
I just updated a couple of my DNS-servers from the rather old version 9.4.1 to
a newer version 9.8.0-P4.
After this I have problem with outages. Looking into it, I found that the time
for a "rndc reload" has nearly doubled!
I've made tests before the update and I have still a few old serv
12 matches
Mail list logo
