lame server resolving error is not being negative cache in BIND9?

[Simon Waters]

Jonathan Tse wrote:
> 
> Thanks for all the replies. Again, I want to share the difficultly that
> operator may face. For this case, unfortunately introduces adverse result
> and it triggered some of my customers' nerve. They complain the network is
> slow but actually because the slower answer from DNS server. Check the 2nd
> ping packet and it always be like that when every time I restart the ping.
> 
> >ping -s 65.217.0.1
> PING 65.217.0.1: 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 65.217.0.1: icmp_seq=0. time=345. ms
> 64 bytes from 65.217.0.1: icmp_seq=1. time=1001. ms
> 64 bytes from 65.217.0.1: icmp_seq=2. time=338. ms

I don't see why you think the second packet in a ping would be
affected by DNS look up.