Search Again: Re: Running on two. From: Men & Mice Support Date: Tuesday, November 2, 1999 Time: 6:43:00 pm >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? As promised, I have had our engineers examine this issue, and my conjecture was confirmed. This is an Open Transport issue on the client machine, not a server issue. Here's the response I got from our engineers: We've done some investigation on this and this seems to be plain resolver stupidity. This is what we did: Experiment 1 ------------ Two DNS server IP addresses specified in the TCP/IP control panel. We killed server 1 and every query took 15+ seconds (The resolver tries server 1 for 15 seconds before giving up. This happens for every query.) Experiment 2 ------------ Three DNS server IP addresses specified in the TCP/IP control panel. We killed server 1 and 2 and every query took 30+ seconds (The resolver tries both servers, each for 15 seconds, before giving up. This happens for every query.) We tried this both with Mac OS 8.6 and 9 and got the same results. Bottom line: The resolver always tries to contact the listed name servers in order, no matter what. ------------ At 5:13 PM -0400 10/29/99, andrew kagan wrote: >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. Have you had a chance to look into this? I would be interested to see if NT (or Linux, or MacOS X Server, or other OS) behaves any better. ____________________________________________________________________ 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