On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:52:33PM -0500, Todd wrote:
> > serial-query-rate
>
> While this appears to be helping in the lab, it's still taking between
> 2 and 3 minutes for each slave to even finish receiving the NOTIFYs
> from the master. They then start hitting the master(s) with SOA
> queries
This has been fixed, sorry.
On 1/20/2010 2:13 AM, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Evan Hunt writes:
>> BIND 9.5.2-P2 is now available.
>>
>> BIND 9.5.2-P2 is a SECURITY PATCH for BIND 9.5.2. It addresses two
>> potential cache poisoning vulnerabilities, both of which cou
In message <429af92e1001201328h2f2c6ef8s6074d706e3eb1...@mail.gmail.com>,
Vincent Poy writes:
> --===4861971564982172998==
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6afe0e73eec047d9f4336
>
> Greetings everyone:
>
> How do I configure bind 9.5 and newer without xml suppo
Greetings everyone:
How do I configure bind 9.5 and newer without xml support in FreeBSD as what
happens is named fails to start in FreeBSD from /etc/rc.conf as it basically
says:
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libxml2.so.9" not found, required by
"named"
It runs fine when I do /etc/rc.d/n
> serial-query-rate
While this appears to be helping in the lab, it's still taking between
2 and 3 minutes for each slave to even finish receiving the NOTIFYs
from the master. They then start hitting the master(s) with SOA
queries whch seems to take a really long time.
We're going to keep tunin
When I tested the multiple masters configuration, I noticed, that slave
chooses master which sends notifies. I used bind-9.4.3-p2.
2010/1/20 Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> Hello,
>
> I wasn't able to find answer, if this is documented anywhere, please point
> me there. I like reading docs ;-)
>
> when
On 2010/01/20, at 13:03, Dave Sparro wrote:
>> We would like to make this better.
>> Can anyone help with ideas on this? Are we missing something obvious?
>>
>
> In that situation I'd consider using CVS on all of the servers to maintain
> the DNS data.
> Just make all of the servers masters
On 1/18/2010 4:27 PM, Todd wrote:
Good day all,
We've run into a problem with our DNS servers. The way we update our
masters is via a CVS Checkout and reload of the zones modified.
Sometimes though, we need to reload the whole config for big
changs/etc. When that happens, all 6 masters (I know
Our secondary server died last night with the following messages:
named[18768]: resolver.c:3827: fatal error:
named[18768]:
RUNTIME_CHECK(((pthread_mutex_unlock(((&res->buckets[bucketnum].lock))) == 0) ?
0 : 34) == 0) failed
named[18768]: exiting (due to fatal error in library)
Has anyone seen
David Coulthart wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> BIND 9.6.1-P3 is a SECURITY PATCH for BIND 9.6.1. It addresses two
>> potential cache poisoning vulnerabilities, both of which could allow
>> a validating recursive nameserver to cache data which had not been
>> authenticat
On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
BIND 9.6.1-P3 is a SECURITY PATCH for BIND 9.6.1. It addresses two
potential cache poisoning vulnerabilities, both of which could allow
a validating recursive nameserver to cache data which had not been
authenticated or was invalid.
Do these vulne
In message
,
Balanagaraju Munukutla writes:
> Hi
>
> we are running BIND 9.2.1 on AIX 5.3 TL11. Now, I would like to upgrade it
> to BIND 9.6.1-p3.
>
> Is this BIND version is stable?
>
> Can anybody help me to suggest how upgrade the BIND with minimal impact? I
> am running BIND in "bind-
I was quite satisfied the ones I blacklisted were causing my CPU load to
spike and have seen no ill effects from having blocked them. I wasn't
suggesting anyone blacklist every IP they don't recognize but rather
those that are trying the same thing over and over such as attempting to
update one o
Hello,
I wasn't able to find answer, if this is documented anywhere, please point
me there. I like reading docs ;-)
when I have configured a zone with multiple masters, does the server
selection work the same way as "ordinary" when resolving remote domains?
And if a NOTIFY comes from one of thos
Evan Hunt writes:
>BIND 9.5.2-P2 is now available.
>
> BIND 9.5.2-P2 is a SECURITY PATCH for BIND 9.5.2. It addresses two
> potential cache poisoning vulnerabilities, both of which could allow
> a validating recursive nameserver to cache data which had not been
> authenticated
seren wrote:
Hi, I've run into some strange issues with BIND and CNAMES.
The examples you show indicate strange issues only with
whatever name server code is running on your localhost.
Nothing in your examples actually identify this as BIND.
We're using BIND9 (on Ubunt
On 19.01.10 08:29, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> Luckily my machines have enough horsepower not to shut down from this
> but I have on occasion seen the CPU load start going up due to it. On
> lowered powered machines this would likely cause what you're seeing.
>
> If you're running a firewall (extern
17 matches
Mail list logo