Re: W2k DNS limitation\load
From: William Stacey [MVP] (staceywREMOVE_at_mvps.org)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: Keith: "DMZ access by IP # not url"
- Previous message: RRK: "Re: W2k DNS limitation\load"
- In reply to: RRK: "Re: W2k DNS limitation\load"
- Next in thread: Roger Abell: "Re: W2k DNS limitation\load"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 00:08:55 -0400
That would be great. The request and the reply would be best (i.e. the
request going into the DNS server from your client and the response.) I
would also try to duplicate the request using dig or nslookup to see if it
always happens for certain queries or just when under load.
-- William Stacey, MVP "RRK" <google@walkersca.com> wrote in message news:uRn2QWdeEHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > William, > > Error msg from application: > >2004-07-22 00:26:46 Resolver: Warning: received 1036450 unusable > (non-recursive) responses from 192.168.1.1; see User's Guide for details. > > After talking with the software vendor i kinda figured out what is really > happening. The application needs a recursive response from the DNS server > when the DNS server response with a non-recursive response, it logs it > saying it can't use it. So my question would be why does MS DNS > send those type of unusable responses. If this is just an interim response > from DNS, and the full response will still be provided, then i can ignore > it. If it is > indeed the final response, why is it being sent by the DNS rather than a > failure response? > They said from past clients it has come down to a load issue when dealing > with MS DNS, so they would love to know more about it so they can see how to > work around it. > > I'm going to try to capture the response in question to see what it looks > like. I'll post the info when i have it available to me. > > have a good night > > > "William Stacey [MVP]" <staceywREMOVE@mvps.org> wrote in message > news:uY7yhwVeEHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > MS DNS should/may be posting some kind of error also. Check your DNS > event > > log. You may see something interesting. > > > > -- > > William Stacey, MVP > > > > "RRK" <google@walkersca.com> wrote in message > > news:ezvLZfSeEHA.3840@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > > William, > > > > > > I will get a hold of the software vendor and have them explain what > their > > > error is so I can post it. Posting their error would be meaningless > since > > > its an error msg they created not MS DNS. > > > > > > In the mean time I'm going to setup NetMon and start logging when the > > issues > > > occurs. However, i would love to know what to exactly look for, and > what > > > DNS debug log settings i should either turn on, or what to look for so > > that > > > i can get more information. > > > > > > thanks William for helping. > > > > > > "William Stacey [MVP]" <staceywREMOVE@mvps.org> wrote in message > > > news:OHEtLjPeEHA.592@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > > > > recursive queries\sec range from 800-2200 > > > > > queries received\sec range from 150-800 > > > > > queries sent\sec range from 150-800 > > > > > > > > Just curious what kind of requirements require 800-2200 dns queries > per > > > > second? > > > > Naturally, most of these should be cached after first resolve so you > > > should > > > > be answering from cache most of time. Unless somekind of unique deal > > > going > > > > on. Either way, am curious. tia. > > > > > > > > > I get tons of recursive query time-outs and fails > > > > > *maybe I should bump up time-out threshold? > > > > > > > > Timeouts from your DNS server waiting on Reply from > Forwarders/RootHints > > > ?? > > > > If so, not sure I would peg that a MS DNS server issue or issue in > front > > > of > > > > your DNS server (i.e. network delay, packet drops, routing issue, > > > forwarder > > > > issue, etc.) Would need to drill down into the NetMon to see the RD > > > Request > > > > and the Reply or not Reply as the case may be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The software vendor told me I should dump MS DNS it can't handle the > > > large > > > > loads, but I don't > > > > > except that as an answer. > > > > > > > > I would also hope that is not the answer. I have found that most > people > > > > that are fond of *nix or other platforms tend to use that same answer > > for > > > > *everything instead of figuring out what the real issue it. What if > > you > > > > change platforms and the issue remains?? Are they so sure of that > > > possition > > > > that they are willing to cover the cost of change if that was not the > > > issue? > > > > I would ask that question for fun to see what the reply is. > > > > > > > > That said, I am not discounting that it could be MS DNS under stress > > here, > > > > but have not seen info yet that would lead to that conclusion. I > would > > > > first try studying some NetMons to see what is going on - great tool > for > > > > this kind of thing. If the Replies are not coming back in time, then > I > > > > don't see how that is a MS DNS issue - but maybe something else is > going > > > on. > > > > I would also PerfMon the Network stack and UDP stats to see if > something > > > > shows up there or how stressed the network is. I would also disable > all > > > > network cards but one just to ease your diag matrix. Also disable all > > > > protocols but TCP/IP - if possible. > > > > > > > > Could you also post the exact message (one or two) in the Log? > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > -- > > > > William Stacey, MVP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Next message: Keith: "DMZ access by IP # not url"
- Previous message: RRK: "Re: W2k DNS limitation\load"
- In reply to: RRK: "Re: W2k DNS limitation\load"
- Next in thread: Roger Abell: "Re: W2k DNS limitation\load"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
