Zone reload time after NOTIFY

[Scott, Casey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org 
> [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Darcy
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:07 PM
> To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
> Subject: Re: Zone reload time after NOTIFY
> 
> Scott, Casey wrote:
> 
> > 
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org
> >>[mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Margolin
> >>Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:14 PM
> >>To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
> >>Subject: Re: Zone reload time after NOTIFY
> >>
> >>In article <e52ai1$a32$1 at sf1.isc.org>,  "Scott, Casey" 
> >><Casey.Scott at wizards.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>I am not concerned specifically with disk operations or the
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>internal
> >>    
> >>
> >>>transfer mechanics of BIND. That's working fine. I just
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>want to reduce
> >>    
> >>
> >>>the amount of time it takes for a newly transferred zone to become 
> >>>available via the name resolution provided by the BIND server.
> >>>This effort is focused on getting BIND to match the responsiveness 
> >>>that the current Windows DNS infrastructure provides.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>So if you do a "dig domainname.com soa @slave" after it 
> logs that it 
> >>has transferred the new version, it still shows the old 
> serial number?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
> >>Arlington, MA
> >>*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
> >>*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I can't get it to reproduce that behavior now!!! I have made 
> the exact 
> >change I was performing yesterday over 15x. Changes are immediately 
> >available via name resolution. Yesterday, when everything was newly 
> >installed (RHEL4 U2 & BIND 9.2.4), there was at least a 20 minute 
> >delay. Any idea what could have been going on?
> >
> Are you sure that your lookup tool wasn't failing over to the 
> next nameserver in /etc/resolv.conf?
> 
> - Kevin 

No, I am not sure it wasn't. As a matter of fact, there is a good chance

that /etc/resolv.conf wasn't even pointing to itself yesterday.

*hanging head in shame* 

Thanks again,
Casey