On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 09:01:51AM -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 20:38:53 -0800 > Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 07:44:42PM -0500, Celejar wrote: > > ... > > > > II) Try a DNS cacher (dnsmasq) > > > > this is a bandaid solution, imo, and may not help anyway... > > We don't try solutions that "may not help"? yeah, that came out wrong... sorry. But thinking about it, it doesn't seem a solution to me because it merely hides the problem under the cache. But I will look into using it as a temporary solution. meanwhile, some tests using time wget http://www.google.com on a lenny machine typically looks like: > --2009-12-06 09:47:44-- http://www.google.com/ > Resolving www.google.com... 72.14.213.99, 72.14.213.103, > 72.14.213.104, ... > Connecting to www.google.com|72.14.213.99|:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > Length: unspecified [text/html] > Saving to: `index.html.14' > > [ <=> ] 5,628 --.-K/s in 0.06s > > 2009-12-06 09:47:44 (88.4 KB/s) - `index.html.14' saved [5628] > > > real 0m0.279s > user 0m0.000s > sys 0m0.004s very consistently. on the problem machine, this is typical: > --2009-12-06 09:36:55-- http://www.google.com/ > Resolving www.google.com... 72.14.213.103, 72.14.213.104, > 72.14.213.105, ... > Connecting to www.google.com|72.14.213.103|:80... connected. > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK > Length: unspecified [text/html] > Saving to: “index.html.5” > > [ <=> ] 5,628 --.-K/s in 0.06s > > > 2009-12-06 09:37:00 (88.1 KB/s) - “index.html.5” saved [5628] > > > real 0m5.280s > user 0m0.000s > sys 0m0.004s the pause is at the "Resolving www.google.com..." line for 5 seconds, very consistently. interestingly this doesn't happen with ping... and nsloopup www.google.com works just fine as well with something like 0.05s real time. I also see the delay with w3m, which points to the problem being in some common http library? Anyway, the delay is consistent at around 5 seconds. When I get more time, I'll see if I can learn more. > > Anyway, dnsmasq is probably something worth doing regardless - it saves > time, bandwidth and server load (although perhaps not all that much of > any). yeah. I used to run it. I don't know why I stopped. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature