From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unbound: Update to 1.6.0
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:44:07 +0100
Message-ID: <7c43c6e5-d892-977a-d72b-c3bae6da15dc@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <1481889567.13949.289.camel@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8931040106962673889=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============8931040106962673889==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

unbound 1.6.0 - with reverted commit - is running here since a few hours
without seen problems so far - we'll see.

One question, being curious:

Could it make sense to compile 'unbound' using '--with-pthreads' for
threading support?

I got the following in '_build.ipfire.log' right now:

...
checking for the pthreads library -lpthreads... no
checking whether pthreads work without any flags... no
checking whether pthreads work with -Kthread... no
checking whether pthreads work with -kthread... no
checking for the pthreads library -llthread... no
checking whether pthreads work with -pthread... yes
checking for joinable pthread attribute... PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE
checking if more special flags are required for pthreads... no
checking for PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT... yes
checking for pthread_spinlock_t... yes
checking for pthread_rwlock_t... yes
checking if -pthread unused during linking... no
...

In this regard, I read
https://www.unbound.net/documentation/howto_optimise.html, but I'm not
so skilled in programming to judge whether this would lead to any
advantages...

Best,
Matthias

On 16.12.2016 12:59, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> that server is not available from the internet. But that you get that IP ad=
dress
> is enough for me. That didn't happen before.
>=20
> I will revert that commit and we will see in the testing if this raises any
> problems again...
>=20
> Best,
> -Michael
>=20
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 12:47 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> On 16.12.2016 11:28, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> >=20
>> > Did you try reverting this one and test if things like
>> > "pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org" resolve again?
>>=20
>> I just tested after adding "qname-minimisation: yes" and
>> "harden-below-nxdomain: yes" to '/etc/unbound/unbound.conf', but neither
>> "pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org" nor its ip-address "172.28.1.165" answered.
>>=20
>> No connection through browser, ping loss on both =3D 100%.
>>=20
>> With or without, I get the following answer with 'dig':
>>=20
>> ...
>> root(a)ipfire: /etc/unbound # dig pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org
>>=20
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4 <<>> pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> ;; Got answer:
>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 45016
>> ;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
>>=20
>> ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
>> ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
>> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
>> ;pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org.     IN      A
>>=20
>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
>> pakfirehub01.i.ipfire.org. 293  IN      A       172.28.1.165
>>=20
>> ;; Query time: 0 msec
>> ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
>> ;; WHEN: Fri Dec 16 12:33:28 CET 2016
>> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 70
>> ...
>>=20
>> Best,
>> Matthias
>>=20
>=20


--===============8931040106962673889==--