RE: Problems resolving hosts
You are experiencing one of the many problems created by the new file system in the 5.x development releases. The file system gets all locked up and then times out before releasing the sector on the hard drive so it can be read by program. All of the 5.x series of FreeBSD releases are from the development branch and contains experimental and un-test kernel code and is recommend by the official FreeBSD web site as only appropriate for users who can debug kernel code, to be used at your own risk. The 4.9 version is the current stable production release appropriate for general public consumption. Submit problem report and install 4.9 if you want problem free operation. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Travis Troyer Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Problems resolving hosts I am running FreeBSD 5.1 and I am suddenly having problems loading certain web pages. The system is behind another FreeBSD machine acting as a router and DHCP server, so it pulls it's IP and such from the router machine. I did not change any settings on either system, and suddenly some web sites have a 1-3 minute delay in loading certain sites when using Mozilla, Netscape, or Konqueror. I have tried booting into windows from the same system, and these same pages load in normal times. They also load fine from any other machine on the network, so I am convinced it's a problem with this system's configuration, but I have no idea where to start. I don't understand why most sites load fine, but a select handful won't. I would appreciate it if anybody could share any ideas about this. I can provide any configuration files or logs, if requested. Thanks in advance, Travis Troyer ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems resolving hosts
JJB wrote: You are experiencing one of the many problems created by the new file system in the 5.x development releases. The file system gets all locked up and then times out before releasing the sector on the hard drive so it can be read by program. Dude, Travis' problem sounds a lot more like what would happen if one of the nameservers listed in /etc/resolv.conf wasn't responding to DNS queries. Your responses would be more helpful to other people if you refrained from locking the notion that all problems with 5.x are due to UFS2 into your brain, or for that matter, being convinced that IPFW is completely broken and there is a conspiracy against other firewalls on FreeBSD. :-) -- -Chuck PS: To debug your problem, try using dig @ns1 host, where you replace ns1 with each of the DNS resolvers you have listed or available, and replace host with one or more hostnames that have been causing delays. This will show you how quickly DNS is working and thus confirm whether the problem lies in this area, or else expose which nameserver isn't working and maybe why... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Problems resolving hosts
Well if you had paid closer attention to what Travis wrote you would have read that nothing had changed on that 5.2 lan box or his lan network so your guess about resolv.conf is way off base, and that UFS2 being the problem is a much more sound opinion. And as far as IPFW goes, your statement is again another case of you not paying attention to what was written. You really need to read closely before opening your mouth saying things which are not true. I never said that IPFW is completely broken what I said is ipfw stateful rules do not work in an Lan network when ipfw's divert/nated legacy subroutine is used. This subject was beat to death in a long thread back around the first of the year. You should check the archives for the technical details before you sound off demonstrating to everyone how little you know about what truly has transpired. Open mouth insert foot. You should also read all the posts to this list and see for your self all the 5.2.1 problems people are having. Bottom line is 5.2 is an very dirty release and is an long way from being moved to stable. It's formal release date has all ready been moved back 3 time and will more than likely move back again. The kernel development team just bit off more than it could handle this time. If it gets moved to stable in it current condition it will only end up being one of those 5.2.1.1.1 releases as fixes are applied to the stable branch and fixing stable releales is not an goal of the stable branch. -Original Message- From: Chuck Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Travis Troyer; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Problems resolving hosts JJB wrote: You are experiencing one of the many problems created by the new file system in the 5.x development releases. The file system gets all locked up and then times out before releasing the sector on the hard drive so it can be read by program. Dude, Travis' problem sounds a lot more like what would happen if one of the nameservers listed in /etc/resolv.conf wasn't responding to DNS queries. Your responses would be more helpful to other people if you refrained from locking the notion that all problems with 5.x are due to UFS2 into your brain, or for that matter, being convinced that IPFW is completely broken and there is a conspiracy against other firewalls on FreeBSD. :-) -- -Chuck PS: To debug your problem, try using dig @ns1 host, where you replace ns1 with each of the DNS resolvers you have listed or available, and replace host with one or more hostnames that have been causing delays. This will show you how quickly DNS is working and thus confirm whether the problem lies in this area, or else expose which nameserver isn't working and maybe why... ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems resolving hosts
On Feb 27, 2004, at 4:18 PM, JJB wrote: Well if you had paid closer attention to what Travis wrote you would have read that nothing had changed on that 5.2 lan box or his lan network so your guess about resolv.conf is way off base, and that UFS2 being the problem is a much more sound opinion. Sigh. I didn't claim that his resolv.conf changed; I didn't claim that his LAN network changed; I said that the behavior he describes is quite close to what would happen if one of the nameservers referenced in resolv.conf was having problems. Do you not comprehend this? And as far as IPFW goes, your statement is again another case of you not paying attention to what was written. You really need to read closely before opening your mouth saying things which are not true. I never said that IPFW is completely broken what I said is ipfw stateful rules do not work in an Lan network when ipfw's divert/nated legacy subroutine is used. This subject was beat to death in a long thread back around the first of the year. You should check the archives for the technical details before you sound off demonstrating to everyone how little you know about what truly has transpired. Open mouth insert foot. Young one, you are considerably less clever than you evidently think you are. That's not surprising; this is unfortunately true of most people. A tone of condescending snobbery pretty much is never appropriate, regardless of who is right or wrong. I don't need to review the archives to remember that discussion; at that time I read them and concluded that you were unable to understand how to make IPFW+NAT work the way you expected it to. However, there are lots of people who use IPFW+NAT successfully (success by their definitions, that is), just as there are people who use PF or other tools. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
