Oh …
Duly noted.
> On 26 Feb 2015, at 4:20 pm, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
> On 26/02/2015 6:08 p.m., d...@getbusi.com wrote:
>> Thanks Amos!
>>
>>
>> I reckon that dns_packet_max directive might be playing into it. Most of the
>> problematic hostnames seem to return large pools of IPs.
>>
>
>
On 26/02/2015 6:08 p.m., d...@getbusi.com wrote:
> Thanks Amos!
>
>
> I reckon that dns_packet_max directive might be playing into it. Most of the
> problematic hostnames seem to return large pools of IPs.
>
Well, its not doing anything by default. But can be turned on to gain.
Just be aware
Thanks Amos!
I reckon that dns_packet_max directive might be playing into it. Most of the
problematic hostnames seem to return large pools of IPs.
Only one way to find out ...
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Amos Jeffries
wrote:
> On 26/02/2015 2:23 p.m., Dan Charlesworth wrote:
>> Hey y
On 26/02/2015 2:23 p.m., Dan Charlesworth wrote:
> Hey y’all
>
> I don’t remember this being covered before…
>
> I see this error (warning?) pretty frequently for hostnames which I can
> always resolve fine if I try them on the same server with dig or nslookup.
>
Are you sure you are resolving
Hey y’all
I don’t remember this being covered before…
I see this error (warning?) pretty frequently for hostnames which I can always
resolve fine if I try them on the same server with dig or nslookup.
What’s the deal? And what does the client experience in the browser when one of
these occurs?
