Re: Slow DNS Lookup (4TH POSTING)
When i type nslookup www.emergeknowledge.com i get the following:
server: localhost
address: 127.0.0.1
name: ns.emergeknowledge.com
address: 64.59.157.18
aliases: www.emergeknowledge.com
and nslookup 64.59.157.18 gives me
server: localhost
address: 127.0.0.1
name: 64-59-157-18.ivideon.com
address: 64.59.157.18
my dns lookup from my linux box isn't slow at all. it works fine...and my
resolv.conf has the following:
search emergeknowledge.com
nameserver 127.0.0.1
thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: <elysium@tsoft.com>
To: "Leonard Leblanc" <lleblanc@emergeknowledge.com>
Cc: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Slow DNS Lookup (4TH POSTING)
> When you type 'nslookup www.emergeknowledge.com' on your DNS server,
> what is the full results? How about 'nslookup <IP>' (to see if the
> reverse is the same)?
>
> This is a slow lookup from your DNS server as well as from other boxes
> using it as their DNS server over the network, right?
>
> What does your /etc/resolv.conf on your DNS server look like?
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:33:56PM -0600, Leonard Leblanc wrote:
> > I am currently running a Debian 2.2 box as my DNS/www/ftp/ssh/etc etc
etc...
> > Anyway the DNS lookup is working fine except for when the internal
machines
> > try to look up 'www.emergeknowledge.com' which is essentially local.
When I
> > am working from home (yes i get to telecommute 4 days a week :)) I can
get
> > to the web-site with no lag whatsoever. This leads me to believe that
is
> > has something to do with the reverse DNS lookup? (i think) Can someone
> > please get back to me on this one? Any information will be helpful.
I've
> > read all the how-tos and tutorials I can get my hands on, but just can't
> > seem to figure this one out....
> >
> > I can post my configuration files if you think it's necessary.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
>
Reply to: