restructuring/redesigning BIND (was Re: 9.2.5 db causes high cpu?)
rick.jones2 at hp.com
Tue Feb 22 23:35:52 UTC 2005
> yes, it is. maybe you can help me understand the alternatives better? when
> we get a query for a zone we havn't loaded yet, should we answer SERVFAIL or
> should we just silently drop the query?
If the server "knows" it will be loading that zone, it should silently drop the
query. At the (considerable) risk of demonstrating my utter lack of specific
knowledge, SERVFAIL sounds like something that would result in an application
error, particularly for an application running on a poorly configured client
with only one nameserver configured. While it is nice to say "well, such
clients deserve what they get" the practical (perhaps kludgy) side of me thinks
that would be iladvised.
Since zone loads are (should be?) considered infrequent transients, best to
"respond" in a manner similar to other transients - such as packet loss.
Unless and until there is a definition for the DNS equivalant of EAGAIN.
just one opinion,
More information about the bind-workers