2015-01-27 13:21 GMT-03:00 Ciro Iriarte :
> 2015-01-27 6:59 GMT-03:00 bert hubert :
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:33:34AM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
>> > Also, the test traffic was stopped, so the trace file should be complete
>> > and cleaner!.
>>
>> Ciro,
>>
>> I don't see anything that is wron
2015-01-27 6:59 GMT-03:00 bert hubert :
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:33:34AM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> > Also, the test traffic was stopped, so the trace file should be complete
> > and cleaner!.
>
> Ciro,
>
> I don't see anything that is wrong here. From a cold cache, it takes 11
> queries to
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:33:34AM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> Also, the test traffic was stopped, so the trace file should be complete
> and cleaner!.
Ciro,
I don't see anything that is wrong here. From a cold cache, it takes 11
queries to resolve 2.centos.pool.ntp.org.
Your network used up th
2015-01-20 22:28 GMT-03:00 Ciro Iriarte :
> 2015-01-19 16:57 GMT-03:00 bert hubert :
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 01:34:45PM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
>> > This were the queries sent from a client:
>> >
>> > 2015-01-16 13:04:38 dig @server 3.redhat.pool.ntp.org <-- NXDOMAIN, my
>> > mistake
>> > 2
2015-01-19 16:57 GMT-03:00 bert hubert :
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 01:34:45PM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> > This were the queries sent from a client:
> >
> > 2015-01-16 13:04:38 dig @server 3.redhat.pool.ntp.org <-- NXDOMAIN, my
> > mistake
> > 2015-01-16 13:15:35 dig @server 2.redhat.pool.ntp.or
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 01:34:45PM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> This were the queries sent from a client:
>
> 2015-01-16 13:04:38 dig @server 3.redhat.pool.ntp.org <-- NXDOMAIN, my
> mistake
> 2015-01-16 13:15:35 dig @server 2.redhat.pool.ntp.org <-- NXDOMAIN, my
> mistake
> 2015-01-16 13:15:52 di
2015-01-15 10:13 GMT-03:00 bert hubert :
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:56:52AM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> > Hi!, can anybody share what's the usual latency you're seeing with
> uncached
> > queries?.
>
> No, that is not usual. Please reproduce with --trace output and share it
> with us. Usually t
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:56:52AM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> Hi!, can anybody share what's the usual latency you're seeing with uncached
> queries?.
No, that is not usual. Please reproduce with --trace output and share it
with us. Usually timeouts are involved.
On a production system, try rec_
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:56:52AM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> Hi!, can anybody share what's the usual latency you're seeing with uncached
> queries?.
>
> I usually see around 2s "Query Time" asking for something like "
> 1.redhat.pool.ntp.org", going as high as 2.8s. The following queries for
>
Hi!, can anybody share what's the usual latency you're seeing with uncached
queries?.
I usually see around 2s "Query Time" asking for something like "
1.redhat.pool.ntp.org", going as high as 2.8s. The following queries for
the same name are pretty fast (around 14ms from remote end users). The
ser
10 matches
Mail list logo
