Dns failure ttl change is the most useful way to deal with this. 10 seconds is 
the default and a failing dns query will be longer than that.  So every use of 
the name will result in a new attempt to lookup the same thing on the same 
failing server

Gregg

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:06 PM, "Christopher Dolan" <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> The java.net.SocketPermission class uses forward and reverse DNS lookups
> to ensure that we're allowed to talk to particular remote machines.
> These lookups are used to canonicalize a remote host's name to ensure
> that variations in that name don't lead to false negatives.
> 
> However, many people have found
> (http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4975882) that if
> there are configuration errors in a DNS system, the reverse DNS failures
> cause very significant latency (e.g. I've seen 10-12 seconds). This
> latency has widely varying affects on a djinn. In many cases, it just
> causes LookupCache slowdowns which can be mitigated by delayed
> deserialization techniques discussed previously on the dev@ mailing
> list. But in some cases, I've seen it cause Reggie to hang up for a
> while (I still don't understand where in Reggie the problem occurs,
> maybe EventListeners?)
> 
> Obviously, the real solution is to properly configure DNS. But I would
> like to know how other people have addressed this issue in their
> deployments.
> 
> * Do you ensure the RMI codebase URLs all use canonical hostnames, or
> IP addresses?
> * Do you ensure that the TcpServerEndpoint has a consistent (perhaps
> hard-coded) name?
> * Do you have monitoring or logging code to proactively detect DNS
> configuration errors?
> * Do you fiddle the Java security property
> "networkaddress.cache.negative.ttl"?
> * Do you use host files?
> * Do you use a non-Sun JVM?
> * Do you use wildcards or IP addresses in your security policy file?
> * Do you completely disable the socket check in your security policy
> file? (yikes!)
> * Have you simply never seen this problem?  (lucky you!)
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 

Reply via email to