Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 06 Sep 2016 11:24:25 +0100
From:      Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk>
To:        Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Query re. /etc/resolv.conf...
Message-ID:  <52ADB1CF9476C838FC3F2080@[10.12.30.106]>
In-Reply-To: <9dcae5bb-93c4-1f31-da1b-03bd3609b314@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <6666070D3E503A5E5747ED16@[10.12.30.106]> <9dcae5bb-93c4-1f31-da1b-03bd3609b314@FreeBSD.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help


--On 06 September 2016 10:33 +0100 Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> 
wrote:

> Clearly this doesn't explain your observed behaviour.  Hmmm.... No, I
> don't see how adding an extra nameserver to resolv.conf could give you
> any worse behaviour than before.  I think you'ld have to grab DNS
> traffic with tcpdump(8) and perform some detailed analyses to debug that.

I re-tested this under a 9.3 box - and it works as it should, it's only on 
our other 10.3 machines it fails (quite spectacularly compared to what it 
should do).

> However, my experience is that local unbound is extremely stable and not
> at all likely to fail.  Adding extra nameservers to /etc/resolv.conf
> really doesn't get you very much, and just isn't worth the effort.

Yes, we've been running unbound for years (before it was included with 
FreeBSD) and it has been very stable. The machine really gets stuffed if 
DNS fails though - so the thought of a "free" DNS of last resort in 
resolv.conf was tempting, but it looks like on 10.3 here we can't rely on 
that now as it makes the situation worse.

I'll have a dig around with tcpdump et'al and see if it turns anything up - 
before we just resort to 127.0.0.1 as the only listed NS.

-Karl



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52ADB1CF9476C838FC3F2080>