From: Paul Simmons <mbatranch@gmail.com>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] unbound: Increase timeout value for unknown dns-server
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 21:02:08 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5b144a1f-28a3-00f1-3358-26845ac7cc76@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f4dc7531-106d-8fac-0a97-e04075f5e03e@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1697 bytes --]
On 1/11/21 11:07 PM, Paul Simmons wrote:
> On 1/10/21 8:07 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 09, 2021 at 12:57:44PM -0600, Paul Simmons
>> (mbatranch(a)gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> I tested the ping (-c1) times for the first 27 IPv4 addresses in the
>>> DNS
>>> server list from the wiki. I can test more, if desired.
>>>
>>> The fastest return was 596ms, and the slowest was 857ms. At
>>> present, I'm
>>> using 9.9.9.10 (631ms ping) and 81.3.27.54 (752ms ping).
>> Wow. That *is* slow.
>>
>>> I'm willing to test Tapani's "/etc/unbound/local.d" proposal(s), if
>>> it will clarify the situation.
>> I think it would be very useful if you could test if changing the
>> limits actually helps in your situation.
>>
>> It's easy enough to do: e.g.,
>>
>> echo 'unknown-server-time-limit: 1128' >/etc/unbound/local.d/timeouts
>>
>> and restart unbound and see if it makes a difference for you.
>>
>> You might also try if non-TLS settings (TCP or UDP) work after that.
>>
> Hello, I have some results.
>
> The /etc/unbound/local.d/timeouts (+unbound restart) did not
> completely resolve NTP related lookup failures. It "seemed" to
> prevent complete failure, but the first of two lookups, to different
> pool aliases, did fail.
>
> I retained the "timeouts" and changed from TLS to TCP, and haven't
> seen any lookup failures.
>
> Tomorrow, I will experiment using "timeouts" and UDP. After a day or
> so, I'll try removing the "timeouts" and repeat the TCP and UDP tests.
>
> Thank you!
>
> p.
>
I've found that UDP doesn't work at all. TCP with "timeout" mod never
fails.
Will now test TCP without "timeout" mod.
Paul
--
Know how to save 5 drowning lawyers? No? GOOD!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-16 3:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20E5B302-A896-4BD2-BAD1-9D6A50831514@ipfire.org>
2021-01-09 15:04 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-09 18:57 ` Paul Simmons
2021-01-10 14:07 ` Tapani Tarvainen
2021-01-12 5:07 ` Paul Simmons
2021-01-16 3:02 ` Paul Simmons [this message]
2021-01-16 8:13 ` Tapani Tarvainen
2021-01-19 6:22 ` Paul Simmons
2021-01-25 19:23 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-25 20:29 ` Paul Simmons
2021-01-25 20:50 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-11 11:10 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-12 4:37 ` Paul Simmons
[not found] <5BE69EAB-BD90-4999-97AE-8A89479AD080@gmail.com>
2021-01-07 11:27 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-07 14:35 ` Tapani Tarvainen
2021-01-07 14:54 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-06 10:17 Jonatan Schlag
2021-01-06 12:02 ` Paul Simmons
2021-01-06 15:14 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-06 16:19 ` Tapani Tarvainen
2021-01-06 18:01 ` Michael Tremer
2021-01-08 8:25 ` Paul Simmons
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5b144a1f-28a3-00f1-3358-26845ac7cc76@gmail.com \
--to=mbatranch@gmail.com \
--cc=development@lists.ipfire.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox