Bug 7690 - Patch-to-try-multiple-nameservers-if-an-update-fails.
Summary: Patch-to-try-multiple-nameservers-if-an-update-fails.
Alias: None
Product: Samba 3.6
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Client Tools (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other Linux
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Guenther Deschner
QA Contact: Samba QA Contact
URL: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-...
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-09-20 03:14 UTC by Patrik Martinsson
Modified: 2011-03-29 08:46 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Patrik Martinsson 2010-09-20 03:14:26 UTC
I'm posting this as a bug here since I didn't get any replies on the mailinglist. 

Even if it doesn't counts as a bug, I think that there at least should be some comments on this matter. 

Please read the mail at the URL provided. 

/Patrik Martinsson, 
Comment 1 Volker Lendecke 2010-09-27 06:00:20 UTC
Do you have an idea how windows behaves in this situation?

Comment 2 Patrik Martinsson 2010-09-27 07:03:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you have an idea how windows behaves in this situation?
> Volker

Hmm, well no not really. However my spontaneous guess is that nobody in our Windows administration is aware whether a "Windows-computer" fails to update the DNS or not. I guess Windows asks the DNS for it's NS record (just as samba does) and thus it's possible to get one of the bind servers first in that list and thus failing the update. (This is just pure guessing though, I have no idea how Windows handles this). 
Comment 3 Kai Blin 2010-10-13 05:19:08 UTC
Imho that's just a broken DNS setup. Either all your authorative mail servers allow updates or they don't. Unless the Windows machines keep retrying until they get lucky, I don't think we should.
Comment 4 Patrik Martinsson 2010-10-18 01:54:59 UTC
Hmm, yes. As I stated in my mail I'm aware of the "broken" DNS setup. However it would be interesting to me if anybody knew how a Windows client acted in this scenario, but maybe that is rather hard to find out. 
Comment 5 Guenther Deschner 2011-01-06 17:40:37 UTC
Just checked in a modified version of your patch to master and to the upcoming 3.6 branch, do you need that fix for earlier versions as well ?
Comment 6 Patrik Martinsson 2011-01-10 05:00:07 UTC
Ah ok, thanks a lot! No it's not needed for earlier versions, 3.6 is good enough. Thanks again!
Comment 7 Guenther Deschner 2011-01-10 05:03:49 UTC
Thanks for checking, closing as fixed.
Comment 8 Patrik Martinsson 2011-03-28 14:30:22 UTC
Hmm, I was a bit quick when I posted the answer on that this fix is not needed in earlier versions of Samba, we use Rhel 6 and it would be preferable if this patch could go into the version that's shipped with Rhel 6.1. 

Rhel 6 is using Samba-3.5.4, I don't know what Rhel 6.1 will be using, but i doubt it will be 3.6.
Comment 9 Volker Lendecke 2011-03-29 08:44:07 UTC
Günther, this seems to be more like a RHEL product question now.
Comment 10 Patrik Martinsson 2011-03-29 08:46:08 UTC
I've created a bug-report in their bugzilla, lets see if they pick it up.