Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Graham Miller <graham@webenhanced.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Are there any procedures I can run to determine if it is dnscache just
>> falling asleep overnight and is too sluggish for windows liking?
>
> dnscache doesn't go to sleep. Perhaps an overnight memory hog (think
> something run from cron: slocate's updatedb, backup job, etc) is pushing
> dnscache's memory out to swap?
OK, thanks Charles. Looked for these... and yes there are a couple like
updatedb and a backup
job. But the box has never been into swap.
> dnscache logs *everything*. Check it's logs for that first query and see for
> yourself exactly how long dnscache takes to generate an answer.
The first "query" generated by the windows XP box this morning started:
07:12:00.455399500 query 108 0a010164:0407:6f3f 1 zonelabs.com.
after TLD records returned from cache, it did:
07:12:00.455481500 tx 0 1 zonelabs.com. com. .....
07:12:00.788918500 rr c036701e 172800 1 dns1.zonelabs.com. d0b9ae8c
07:12:00.788920500 rr c036701e 172800 1 dns2.zonelabs.com. d0b9ae8d
07:12:00.788922500 rr c036701e 172800 ns zonelabs.com. dns1.zonelabs.com.
07:12:00.788923500 rr c036701e 172800 ns zonelabs.com. dns2.zonelabs.com.
07:12:00.788924500 stats 108 45867 1 0
07:12:00.788925500 cached 1 dns1.zonelabs.com.
07:12:00.788927500 cached 1 dns2.zonelabs.com.
07:12:00.788928500 tx 0 1 zonelabs.com. zonelabs.com. d0b9ae8c d0b9ae8d
07:12:00.966045500 rr d0b9ae8c 86400 1 zonelabs.com. d157d12c
07:12:00.966048500 rr d0b9ae8c 86400 1 dns1.zonelabs.com. d0b9ae8c
07:12:00.966049500 rr d0b9ae8c 86400 1 dns2.zonelabs.com. d0b9ae8d
07:12:00.966050500 rr d0b9ae8c 86400 ns zonelabs.com. dns2.zonelabs.com.
07:12:00.966052500 rr d0b9ae8c 86400 ns zonelabs.com. dns1.zonelabs.com.
07:12:00.966053500 stats 108 46071 1 0
and delivered answer to PC (is this right?):
07:12:00.966054500 sent 108 46
So does that mean it took around 0.5 of a second to go out to the internet and
retrieve the
zonelabs ns records and return the answer to the windoze PC?
That does not seem excessive.
So it appears the problem lies in the XP box.
The very next query started:
07:12:10.417059500 query 109 0a010164:0409:1d3c 1 zonelabs.com.
07:12:10.417063500 cached 1 zonelabs.com.
07:12:10.417064500 sent 109 46
So does this mean that caching seems fine?
Thanks
Graham
|