Prev-20 Home Next-20 3 msg Cannot Resolve .Net Domains 2 msg domain 'state.gov' resolve time out 2 msg log file entries 7 msg Bind9(9.3.2p1) 'out of memory' 6 msg Unexpected First Lookup Delay 6 msg active directory, bind9, windows dns - TOGETHER 2 msg Failover network strategy 3 msg named 9.3.1 crashed bind-9.3.2-33.fc5 \ Wael Shahin (21 Sep 2006) . \ Mark Andrews (21 Sep 2006) . . \ Martin Stransky (21 Sep 2006) . \ Shaheen (21 Sep 2006) . . \ Joseph S D Yao (26 Sep 2006) . \ Barry Margolin (21 Sep 2006) . . \ Wael Shaheen (22 Sep 2006) . \ Barry Margolin (22 Sep 2006) . \ (Thomas Schulz) (23 Sep 2006) . \ broadcast (23 Sep 2006) . \ Mark Andrews (23 Sep 2006) . \ broadcast (24 Sep 2006) . \ Mark Andrews (25 Sep 2006) . \ broadcast (25 Sep 2006) . . \ Bill Larson (25 Sep 2006) . \ broadcast (25 Sep 2006) . \ Mark Andrews (25 Sep 2006) . \ broadcast (27 Sep 2006) . \ Kirk at dogsplace dot (27 Sep 2006) . \ broadcast (27 Sep 2006) . . \ Kevin Darcy (27 Sep 2006) . . \ Joseph S D Yao (27 Sep 2006) . \ Barry Margolin (27 Sep 2006) . \ Mark Andrews (27 Sep 2006) . \ broadcast (27 Sep 2006) . . \ Joseph S D Yao (28 Sep 2006) . \ Dave Stewart (28 Sep 2006) . . \ Joseph S D Yao (28 Sep 2006) . . . \ Wael Shahin (28 Sep 2006) . . . . \ Joseph S D Yao (29 Sep 2006) 3 msg strange reverse response 4 msg how to check the version of BIND 2 msg failed forwarder timeout 4 msg Basic tips and hints. 3 msg Multiple NSs or multiple glue records 1 msg bind-9.3.2 - what could be the cause of these e... 2 msg Problem named-xfer 2 msg Virtual Hosts, Reverse Lookup and Mailserver 1 msg Question about blackhole substatement 5 msg DNS update -- reverse zone 2 msg Bind 9.2.3 existing Prev-20 Home Next-20

Prev-Msg Prev-Thread Bind-users Sep-2006 Next-Thread Next-Msg Subject: Re: bind-9.3.2-33.fc5 Group: Bind-users From: Joseph S D Yao Date: 29 Sep 2006 On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:50:11PM +0300, Wael Shahin wrote: > Hello, > I believe that what Dave have said is true, am sure that will generate more > traffic on my servers but it will be the negative responses only. I have > been monitoring the servers since then and they are OK, I actually don't > know if the -4 argument would be a better solution since i haven't tried it. > and also, we on peak time have almost 20'000 concurrent users and servers > utilization is ok though. > Regards If you think it might be a better solution, why don't you try it and let us know how it works in your particular situation? Thanks. -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies. Prev-Msg Prev-Thread Bind-users Sep-2006 Next-Thread Next-Msg

© 2004-2008 readlist.com