Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Slow BIND performance

  • 22-01-2006 2:31pm
    #1
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    I'm running a couple of BIND9 nameservers, to act as both caching DNS servers for the networks behind them and to be authorative for some domains. I've noticed that they are quite slow in resolving names that are not already cached. For example: 
    [root@piglet etc]# time dig +trace isc.org

; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> +trace isc.org
;; global options:  printcmd
.                       359014  IN      NS      j.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      k.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      l.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      m.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      a.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      b.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      c.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      d.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      e.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      f.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      g.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      h.root-servers.net.
.                       359014  IN      NS      i.root-servers.net.
;; Received 436 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 3 ms

org.                    172800  IN      NS      TLD1.ULTRADNS.NET.
org.                    172800  IN      NS      TLD2.ULTRADNS.NET.
org.                    172800  IN      NS      TLD3.ULTRADNS.org.
org.                    172800  IN      NS      TLD4.ULTRADNS.org.
org.                    172800  IN      NS      TLD5.ULTRADNS.INFO.
org.                    172800  IN      NS      TLD6.ULTRADNS.CO.UK.
;; Received 283 bytes from 192.58.128.30#53(j.root-servers.net) in 125 ms

isc.org.                86400   IN      NS      ns-ext.sth1.isc.org.
isc.org.                86400   IN      NS      ns-ext.nrt1.isc.org.
isc.org.                86400   IN      NS      ns-ext.lga1.isc.org.
isc.org.                86400   IN      NS      ns-ext.isc.org.
;; Received 188 bytes from 204.74.112.1#53(TLD1.ULTRADNS.NET) in 104 ms

isc.org.                3600    IN      A       204.152.184.88
isc.org.                3600    IN      NS      ns-ext.sth1.isc.org.
isc.org.                3600    IN      NS      ns-ext.isc.org.
isc.org.                3600    IN      NS      ns-ext.lga1.isc.org.
isc.org.                3600    IN      NS      ns-ext.nrt1.isc.org.
;; Received 232 bytes from 192.228.89.19#53(ns-ext.sth1.isc.org) in 8243 ms


real    0m14.991s
user    0m0.015s
sys     0m0.025s
[root@piglet etc]#
    The first couple of steps go quite briskly, but notice the time on the last query: 8.2 seconds. The next time I look this up, it returns a reply instantly from the cache.

    Any idea what I can do to make this process quicker?


Comments

  • #2
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Digging ('scuse the pun) a little further: I notice that when I follow that query with one to (say) ftp.isc.org, the response is very quick, even though it isn't cached. I'm led to suspect that the problem is with the authoritative nameservers for the isc.org domain - the list of servers returned are all specified as domain names, and all are in the isc.org domain. But I don't have IP addresses yet for isc.org! What does BIND do in this situation, and why does it take so long?


  • #3
    niallb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,747 ✭✭✭niallb


    Have you tried disabling ipv6 lookups?
    The command line option -4 tells bind9
    to only do ipv4 lookups, and sped things up a lot for me.

    Debian puts this in /etc/default/bind9:
    OPTIONS="-4 -u bind"


    Hope that helps,
    NiallB


  • #4
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Not an option in this version of bind (9.2.4), unfortunately.


  • #5
    niallb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,747 ✭✭✭niallb


    oscarBravo wrote:
    Not an option in this version of bind (9.2.4), unfortunately.
    If upgrading to 9.3 is not an option,
    and you're not using ipv6 for anything,
    you could try disabling ipv6 in the kernel.

    The easiest way is to look for the module aliases and change
    alias net-pf-10 ipv6 to alias net-pf-10 off

    Debian and similar use the file /etc/modprobe.d/aliases for this.

    Alternatively you might be able to roll back to 9.2.3,
    as a 4-6 second delay due to ipv6 resolution is a known
    bug in 9.2.4.

    What distributions or operating systems are involved?

    Good luck,
    NiallB


  • #6
    bminish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 480 ✭✭bminish


    niallb wrote:

    The easiest way is to look for the module aliases and change
    alias net-pf-10 ipv6 to alias net-pf-10 off

    What distributions or operating systems are involved?

    Thanks, that did the trick nicely.
    BTW it's Centos 4.2

    Myself and oscarBravo are both minding the same box :)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement