- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Operating Systems
- >
- Operating System - HP-UX
- >
- Name Server Timeout
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 12:12 PM
03-12-2003 12:12 PM
Name Server Timeout
I'm faced with a dillema:
We host a series of L-Class, 11.00 HP-UX boxes. Meanwhile, we have two Linux DNS servers which also serve about 200 other servers.
When sending mail, sometimes, I rec'v a NAME SERVER TIMEOUT, but it's not all the time, and it is with different domain names.
My question is that while it looks like bind496 was the default on 11.00, is there a newer bind client? Also, can this be attributed to a different problem other than the bind client?
I should mention that we are running on a GigE network and it's not saturated, so speed is not an issue.
Here's the message I get when I try to force sendmail:
# sendmail -q -v
Running /var/spool/mqueue/h2BMi2Y03372 (sequence 1 of 1)
blahblah.com: Name server timeout
But then as soon as I do the nslookup on blahblah.com, and another sendmail -q -v, then it goes through without a problem.
Thanks in advance.
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 12:30 PM
03-12-2003 12:30 PM
Re: Name Server Timeout
I run 2 C110 DNS 11.0 machines and they can resolve at least 100 requests per second over a 100 Meg fast ethernet network with only about 15% cpu utilization.
The only times we have any DNS timeouts is when the primary machine is down for maintenance or patches, which is about once a year.
All the 300 clients are 11.0 or 11i machines which have DNS caching setup on them to support the 500 or so terminals connected to each of them.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 12:53 PM
03-12-2003 12:53 PM
Re: Name Server Timeout
Have your nsswitch.conf file look first in /etc/hosts and then DNS. We have a small Linux box that does DNS, that is looked after by our network div. We update our UX hosts files once a week.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 12:54 PM
03-12-2003 12:54 PM
Re: Name Server Timeout
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 01:38 PM
03-12-2003 01:38 PM
Re: Name Server Timeout
you might also run
nslookup
set type=ns
.
and see if you have some bad rootservers.
Ron
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 02:05 PM
03-12-2003 02:05 PM
Re: Name Server Timeout
That said ... are the domain names that are failing to resolve something that you would expect your DNS servers to have in cache? (i.e., are they domains that you send email to often?) It just may be that your upstream DNS servers are the one having the problem. Perhaps it's taking 17 seconds for them to reply to your Linux box, but sendmail is only waiting 15 seconds. By the time you notice and check it yourself, your Linux box has received the answer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 02:17 PM
03-12-2003 02:17 PM
Re: Name Server Timeout
One thing I'd like to know is that how can I tell sendmail NOT to lookup names, but send it DIRECTLY to the mailhub.
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-12-2003 02:32 PM
03-12-2003 02:32 PM
Re: Name Server Timeout
Chris
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
03-13-2003 05:45 AM
03-13-2003 05:45 AM
Re: Name Server Timeout
1. Modify /etc/rc.config.d/mailservs as follows so that the following line appears:
export SENDMAIL_SERVER_NAME=foo
If your system does not RECEIVE mail, only sends mail to the hub, then you can disable the sendmail server process by changing the line
export SENDMAIL_SERVER=1
to
export SENDMAIL_SERVER=
2. Now you need to create a "nullclient" sendmail.cf file. This can be done using the pre-built .m4 macros HP provides in /usr/newconfig/etc/mail. Now, everytime I've had to do this I've had to relearn how to so the m4 stuff. If you have the O'Reilly sendmail books then they can provide examples which are almost correct. Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly how to do it, but the files you need are in that directory. Just create the sendmail.cf file using the nullclient.m4 macro. Set a few variables like DS, DM, and DR, all pointing to host foo, and you should be alright.