On 26/02/13 21:34, Bryan Harris wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Robert Moskowitz r...@htt-consult.com wrote:
On 02/26/2013 01:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/26/2013 10:38 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I would like a scalpel for lame logging, but probably would not discover
Congrats to ISC and everyone that has worked on BIND 10!
I am building new name servers and redesigning our infrastructure with an
eye towards streamlining, improving security and implementing DNSSEC. I
had been testing a few things with BIND 9.9.x. Now that BIND 10 is
released, I am
Hello,
I was wondering if someone on this list can assist me in figuring this out. I
am trying to run the rndc addzone / delzone for many domains at once on a set
of name servers. When this is done the the load on the box goes very high, and
the process just slows right down to a halt
For various testing reasons, I have been running a tld here of htt. It
has worked of old and continues to work on my new 9.8.2 Centos servers.
Problem came up from a namecaching server that 'forwards only' to my
internal server. It cannot resolve any hosts in this tld and on the
server
I discovered my bind 9 server was being used in a DDOS attack so I
decided (late) to block outside networks from making recursive
requests. The problem is every time I enable this, the time for DNS
queries goes from 0-1ms to 2000-6000ms or just times out completely.
The options section is
I suspect this is just logging. send the security channel to null;
for a while. Once your server gets off the I'm a recursive reflector
lists you can turn it on again.
In message 512e7940.7060...@argontech.net, Marco C. Coelho writes:
I discovered my bind 9 server was being used in a DDOS
Just so the list has the same answer,
Mark Andrews was right.
This server was being hammered so hard that logging the rejects was
killing the performance.
adding:
logging {
category default { null; };
//category lame-servers { null; };
};
to named.conf fixed the performance issues.
mc
In message ofbf91a47c.2e7c9f7c-on85257b1f.0049de28-85257b1f.004aa...@e1b.org,
wbr...@e1b.org writes:
Congrats to ISC and everyone that has worked on BIND 10!
I am building new name servers and redesigning our infrastructure with an
eye towards streamlining, improving security and
From: Marco C. Coelho
Mark Andrews was right.
This server was being hammered so hard that logging the rejects was
killing the performance.
adding:
logging {
category default { null; };
//category lame-servers { null; };
};
On 2/27/2013 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I suspect
In message 512e97aa.2020...@argontech.net, Marco C. Coelho writes:
Just so the list has the same answer,
Mark Andrews was right.
This server was being hammered so hard that logging the rejects was
killing the performance.
adding:
logging {
category default { null; };
//category
In message 512e31ca.5030...@htt-consult.com, Robert Moskowitz writes:
For various testing reasons, I have been running a tld here of htt. It
has worked of old and continues to work on my new 9.8.2 Centos servers.
Problem came up from a namecaching server that 'forwards only' to my
On 02/27/2013 08:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 512e31ca.5030...@htt-consult.com, Robert Moskowitz writes:
For various testing reasons, I have been running a tld here of htt. It
has worked of old and continues to work on my new 9.8.2 Centos servers.
Problem came up from a namecaching
Dear All,
Is there a way to flush MX records from the cache of a caching DNS server ?
Thanks
Abdul Khader
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
Hi,
I've been doing some throughput testing of BIND for both signed and non-signed
zones of various sizes and have noticed some odd behaviour.
Using the 'dnsperf' tool to perform the testing, I see that smaller (signed)
zones perform considerably worse than larger zones when queried with +DO.
14 matches
Mail list logo
