Search Again: Re: Running on two. From: andrew kagan Date: Friday, October 29, 1999 Time: 9:13:00 pm Thanks, Chris...it wouldn't surprise me if it's a TCP stack issue...I'll try it with a few NT boxes and see what happens. ----- Original Message ----- From: Men & Mice Support <cbuxton@menandmice.com> To: QuickDNS Talk <quickdns-talk@lists.menandmice.com> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Running on two. > At 4:33 PM -0400 10/29/99, andrew kagan wrote: > >I've experienced this as well. If I turn off my primary, and even if I have > >the secondary DNS IP listed on the client computer, I'll just get a "page > >cannot be displayed" or "server not found" error. > > > >A long time ago, I had the secondary set up as a primary as well, but I > >don't remember if it behaved any differently. > > > >Men and Mice, is there something I'm missing? Is there a TTL at play here > >that makes the client ignore that a secondary exists? > > I was just noticing a similar behavior on my machine yesterday, but > it had nothing to do with QuickDNS Pro - one of my DNS servers had > crashed, and my TCP/IP stack wasn't going to the second server. > > Ideally, a recursive query should be sent to each server listed in > the control panel, simultaneously. TCP/IP should then take the first > answer it gets. It might do some tuning thereafter, based on > whichever server responds more quickly, but it should at least > periodically try both (all) servers. It looks to me like maybe OT is > instead just querying the first listed server; if a timeout occurs, > it might then move on to the second server (I'm not sure). > > This looks to me to be an Open Transport issue on the client machine, > and not a server issue at all. However, I'll ask our engineers to > look into this, just in case. > ____________________________________________________________________ > Chris Buxton cbuxton@menandmice.com > Men & Mice http://www.menandmice.com > Makers of: QuickDNS Pro

Messages In This Thread: Re: Running on two. by andrew kagan on Oct 29, 1999 at 8:33:00 pm Running on two. by Ross Markbreiter on Oct 29, 1999 at 8:37:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Oct 29, 1999 at 8:47:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Oct 29, 1999 at 8:52:00 pm Re: Running on two. by andrew kagan on Oct 29, 1999 at 9:13:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Oct 29, 1999 at 9:23:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Ross Markbreiter on Oct 29, 1999 at 9:34:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Ross Markbreiter on Oct 29, 1999 at 10:03:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Nov 2, 1999 at 6:43:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Ross Markbreiter on Nov 2, 1999 at 7:17:00 pm Re: Running on two. by andrew kagan on Nov 2, 1999 at 7:41:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Peter Lalor on Nov 2, 1999 at 9:07:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Peter Bancroft on Nov 2, 1999 at 10:37:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Nov 2, 1999 at 10:46:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Nov 2, 1999 at 11:21:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Ross Markbreiter on Nov 2, 1999 at 11:30:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Nov 2, 1999 at 11:49:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Ross Markbreiter on Nov 2, 1999 at 11:54:00 pm Re: Running on two. by Ross Markbreiter on Nov 3, 1999 at 12:59:00 am Re: Running on two. by Men & Mice Support on Nov 3, 1999 at 1:19:00 am