On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Tim Moore wrote:
> > The resolv.conf is fine. The problem appears to have been
> > the mis-spelling of the word "localhost" in the "/etc/hosts"
> > file. Once I corrected that, I was able to ftp into my
> > linux box from the LAN just fine... :-)
>
> Ahh, if only they were al
> The resolv.conf is fine. The problem appears to have been
> the mis-spelling of the word "localhost" in the "/etc/hosts"
> file. Once I corrected that, I was able to ftp into my
> linux box from the LAN just fine... :-)
Ahh, if only they were all so simple...
--
_
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Tim Moore wrote:
> What's you resolv.conf look like? I was getting long lookups until I
> removed the 'domain x' and 'search' fields. Now it just
> 'nameserver' fields.
>
> Also try 'strace -t ' to see where the time is being taken up. On
> the target system try 'strac
What's you resolv.conf look like? I was getting long lookups until I
removed the 'domain x' and 'search' fields. Now it just
'nameserver' fields.
Also try 'strace -t ' to see where the time is being taken up. On
the target system try 'strace -tfp `pidof inetd`'. I used a local LAN
ftp as
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Talkington wrote:
> >Ok...yeah. I fixed that. And strangely enough that *does*
> >seem to have been the problem.
>
> As one who has been known to spend entire afternoons debugging printer
> problems, only to discover that the printer cable was not connected,
> I've lear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
John Aldrich wrote:
>> recently had just such an issue on one of our Suns; no one knew why
>> one particular machine was so dog-slow processing logins. Turned out
>> to be a wayward space in the localhost line in /etc/hosts. =)
>>
>Ok...yeah. I fixed that. A
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Talkington wrote:
> Nomadduh. The nis stuff is in there by default; it's ignored, though I
> remove it from mine. How 'bout the spelling error we discussed? I
> recently had just such an issue on one of our Suns; no one knew why
> one particular machine was so dog-slow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
John Aldrich wrote:
>Here's the relevant section of my /etc/nsswitch.conf
>passwd: files nisplus nis
>shadow: files nisplus nis
>group: files nisplus nis
>
>#hosts: db files nisplus nis dns
>hosts: files nisplus nis dns
>
>
>Now, I'm not r
You asked:
> John, what does your hosts line in /etc/nsswitch.conf
> say? It should look something like this:
>
> hosts: files dns
>
> There definitely does not need to be a nameserver running
> for local lookups, as long as /etc/hosts is complete and
> accurate.
>
Here's the relevant se
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, you wrote:
>
> iJohn Aldrich wrote:
>
> >Here's my hosts file:
> >
> >10.0.0.1netgear.highertech.net netgear (isdn
> > router)
> >10.0.0.50 john.highertech.net john (Windows box)
> >127.0.0.1 locahost
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, you wrote:
>
> John, what does your hosts line in /etc/nsswitch.conf say? It should
> look something like this:
>
> hosts: files dns
>
> There definitely does not need to be a nameserver running for local
> lookups, as long as /etc/hosts is complete and accurate.
>
Ok
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
iJohn Aldrich wrote:
>Here's my hosts file:
>
>10.0.0.1netgear.highertech.net netgear (isdn
> router)
>10.0.0.50 john.highertech.net john (Windows box)
>127.0.0.1 locahostlocalhost
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
John Aldrich wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mike Burger wrote:
>> You can set the order using (ugh!!!) Linuxconf, but that controls the
>> order in which named does its lookups. Without named, you have nothing to
>> do those lookups...at least in the setup descr
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mike Burger wrote:
> You can set the order using (ugh!!!) Linuxconf, but that controls the
> order in which named does its lookups. Without named, you have nothing to
> do those lookups...at least in the setup described.
>
Nuts... Ok. *sigh* guess I'm gonna have to set up na
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, John Aldrich wrote:
>
> Hmm...I thought that's why you put the lookup process to
> local, then DNS Going into "netconf" you can specify
> the order in which to query things... I reset it to "hosts"
> (hosts file) then DNS. We'll see if that makes any
> difference.
>
Ok...t
You can set the order using (ugh!!!) Linuxconf, but that controls the
order in which named does its lookups. Without named, you have nothing to
do those lookups...at least in the setup described.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, John Aldrich wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Michael Burger wrote:
> > That's pr
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Michael Burger wrote:
> That's probably it, then.
>
> When you make a connection to an inetd controlled service, it tries
> to verify the name of the system against the incoming IP. It does
> this by consulting a running named, either on the local system, or on
> someplace r
That's probably it, then.
When you make a connection to an inetd controlled service, it tries
to verify the name of the system against the incoming IP. It does
this by consulting a running named, either on the local system, or on
someplace remote. The time out on that lookup can be fairly
long.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Michael Burger wrote:
> Probably a dumb question, but did you also add names to the hosts
> file for those systems, and is named running on the "remote" system?
>
No... I don't run bind or named. This is strictly a home
LAN with 2 Windows boxen and 1 linux box.
John
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Michael Burger wrote:
> Probably a dumb question, but did you also add names to the hosts
> file for those systems, and is named running on the "remote" system?
>
Here's my hosts file:
10.0.0.1netgear.highertech.net netgear (isdn
Probably a dumb question, but did you also add names to the hosts
file for those systems, and is named running on the "remote" system?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:05:03 -0500, John Aldrich wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote:
>> Happy to have been of service.
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROT
If I were a smarter man, I'd do the same.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Silviu Cojocaru wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 08:47 -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
>
> > You're probably right...I really need to stop trying to reply to technical
> > queries at 6AM. Blarg.
>
> Heh heh, at that hour I only retrieve
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> Happy to have been of service.
>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I've been watching this thread as I've noticed the same issue on the local
> > LAN here, (no local BIND). Local ftp connections are slow to establish,
> > but I'd always been c
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed into the bitstream:
>I've been watching this thread as I've noticed the same issue on the local
>LAN here, (no local BIND). Local ftp connections are slow to establish,
>but I'd always been connecting via IP addresses rather than using the host
> name
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 08:47 -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> You're probably right...I really need to stop trying to reply to technical
> queries at 6AM. Blarg.
Heh heh, at that hour I only retrieve mail, I answer them an hour later,
when my mind is clear :-)
--
Memory fault - where am I?
.
Happy to have been of service.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been watching this thread as I've noticed the same issue on the local
> LAN here, (no local BIND). Local ftp connections are slow to establish,
> but I'd always been connecting via IP addresses rather than using t
I've been watching this thread as I've noticed the same issue on the local
LAN here, (no local BIND). Local ftp connections are slow to establish,
but I'd always been connecting via IP addresses rather than using the host
name so it didn't appear the thread was germain to mu situation.
Nevert
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Nathalie Boulos spewed into the bitstream:
NB>> How many hosts are on your LAN?
NB>
NB>there are 2 Red Hat 6.2 (one as a mail server (sendmail) the other Apache).
NB>Both are configured as DNS cache. There are also windows servers (DHCP and
NB>SQL).
NB>My segment is connecte
> dual network cards? I think there's a way to give 2 IPs to one interface
> isn't it (by programming a sub interface)?
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Chuck Mead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2
ogramming a sub interface)?
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Mead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: My Linux server takes time to reply
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Nathalie Boulos spewed into the bitstream:
&
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Chuck Mead wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mike Burger spewed into the bitstream:
>
> MB>The server is taking so long to reply because it can not resolve your IP
> MB>address against a domain name.
> MB>
> MB>The reason is that your DNS server appears to not be running. That
>
many hosts are on your LAN?
NB>- Original Message -
NB>From: Chuck Mead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NB>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NB>Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 2:53 PM
NB>Subject: Re: My Linux server takes time to reply
NB>
NB>
NB>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001,
ay, March 14, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: My Linux server takes time to reply
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mike Burger spewed into the bitstream:
>
> MB>The server is taking so long to reply because it can not resolve your
IP
> MB>address against a domain name.
> MB>
> MB>The rea
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mike Burger spewed into the bitstream:
MB>The server is taking so long to reply because it can not resolve your IP
MB>address against a domain name.
MB>
MB>The reason is that your DNS server appears to not be running. That
MB>message appears to show that you're trying to run
vers. And I have
the same "bind" error on both servers too. Knowing that both servers are
configured as DNS cache.
What do you think?
- Original Message -
From: Mike Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:30 PM
Subjec
The server is taking so long to reply because it can not resolve your IP
address against a domain name.
The reason is that your DNS server appears to not be running. That
message appears to show that you're trying to run BIND from within
inetd...and if so, that's the incorrect way to do it. BIND
Hi,
I have a Red Hat 6.2 running as a sendmail and apache web server on a LAN.
When I try to connect to my server by telnet,ftp , to retrieve my mail or to
connect to the web server, linux takes time to reply. Though I'm working on
the same LAN.
I have the following error message in the /var/lo
Hi,
I have a Red Hat 6.2 running as a sendmail and
apache web server on a LAN.
When I try to connect to my server by telnet,ftp ,
to retrieve my mail or to connect to the web server, linux takes time
to reply. Though I'm working on the same LAN.
I have the following error message in the
38 matches
Mail list logo