Bug 8879 - Internal DNS server is too synchronous
Summary: Internal DNS server is too synchronous
Alias: None
Product: Samba 4.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Other (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P5 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kai Blin
QA Contact: samba4-qa@samba.org
Depends on:
Reported: 2012-04-19 07:35 UTC by Matthieu Patou
Modified: 2012-05-30 05:17 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Patch (46.41 KB, patch)
2012-05-29 13:47 UTC, Volker Lendecke
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Matthieu Patou 2012-04-19 07:35:12 UTC
Request sent to forwarder are sent in a synchronous way.
It seems that the handling of incoming request is also done in a sequential way.
DNS server can receive a lot of request, an async behaviour is needed in order to avoid timeout or delays for clients.
Comment 1 Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer 2012-05-04 08:48:23 UTC
Reassign correctly.
Comment 2 Kai Blin 2012-05-04 11:56:27 UTC
That's a know TODO item.
Comment 3 Matthieu Patou 2012-05-04 17:38:21 UTC
IMHO it's a required feature if we want to have internal DNS as the default DNS.
Being able to flood the internal DNS just with my own computer is not a good sign.
Comment 4 Volker Lendecke 2012-05-29 13:47:26 UTC
Created attachment 7603 [details]

The attached patch fixes the bug for me.
Comment 5 Matthieu Patou 2012-05-29 19:17:58 UTC
Seems to work, I'm putting it a bit under stress and update the bug but it seems to do the job pretty well.
Comment 6 Michael Adam 2012-05-29 19:55:01 UTC
I tested and stressed the code a bit earlier today.
It seems to work really well.

Under the circumstances dns failed to respond most of the time before, namely while running an exchange schema update, it preformed much better now. The requests that are sent to the forwarder are answered immediately most of the time. The requests to the own zone are timing out every other time roughly, but this must be due to the load on the sam.ldb.

Maybe the next but is "the ldb server is too synchronuous" (or to slow...)

Cheers - Michael
Comment 7 Kai Blin 2012-05-30 05:17:05 UTC
This patchset passed autobuild last night. Marking bug as resolved.