Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    DNS Forwarder - Excessive (20x) latency vs external server

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved DHCP and DNS
    15 Posts 4 Posters 6.2k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • N
      NetworkNubbin
      last edited by

      I think I should also correct the Post subject/issue I'm having.

      It does seem that the device is caching (reduced query times), however I'm experiencing severe latency while doing so.

      Where should I be looking? I'm not seeing any cpu spikes/nic drops etc when I try this. CPU is idling between 99-100%

      Proof it is indeed caching:
      $ while [ true ]; do time dig pfsense.org | grep Query; sleep 1; done
      ;; Query time: 86 msec

      real 0m1.095s
      user 0m0.000s
      sys 0m0.008s
      ;; Query time: 40 msec

      real 0m1.050s
      user 0m0.008s
      sys 0m0.000s
      ;; Query time: 52 msec

      real 0m1.062s
      user 0m0.004s
      sys 0m0.004s
      ;; Query time: 36 msec

      real 0m1.046s
      user 0m0.000s
      sys 0m0.008s

      Edit: Although the Query times still aren't any faster than external servers…physics says it should be.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cmb
        last edited by

        The time nslookup takes to run doesn't necessarily have any exact relation to how fast the DNS server responds is why that isn't valid.

        This is along the lines of what's typical to see, first query will depend on how fast your configured DNS servers respond, subsequent ones within the TTL will respond from cache.

        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.5|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 70 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.5|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.5|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.5|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.5|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec

        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.1|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 28 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.1|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.1|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.1|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec
        [cmb@fbsd83 ~]$ dig forum.pfsense.org @10.x.x.1|grep Query
        ;; Query time: 1 msec

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • johnpozJ
          johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
          last edited by

          You clearly have something wrong - is that 1m I am seeing in your post?

          Here is from my linux box to my pfsense box (dns forwarder)

          @ubuntu:~$ while [ true ]; do time nslookup google.com | grep real; sleep 1; done

          real    0m0.669s
          user    0m0.036s
          sys    0m0.112s

          real    0m0.021s
          user    0m0.004s
          sys    0m0.012s

          real    0m0.021s
          user    0m0.012s
          sys    0m0.004s

          real    0m0.020s
          user    0m0.004s
          sys    0m0.008s

          An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
          If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
          Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
          SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • N
            NetworkNubbin
            last edited by

            @johnpoz:

            You clearly have something wrong - is that 1m I am seeing in your post?

            Here is from my linux box to my pfsense box (dns forwarder)

            @ubuntu:~$ while [ true ]; do time nslookup google.com | grep real; sleep 1; done

            real    0m0.669s
            user    0m0.036s
            sys     0m0.112s

            real    0m0.021s
            user    0m0.004s
            sys     0m0.012s

            real    0m0.021s
            user    0m0.012s
            sys     0m0.004s

            real    0m0.020s
            user    0m0.004s
            sys     0m0.008s

            Yeah, I definitely have something wrong. I'm trying to figure out what to debug/look at, but I'm lost. In my post, you're seeing 1.05~ seconds to complete the process vs 0.05~ seconds when I'm not using the forwarder. While 1.05 seconds isn't a 'ton', it's extremely noticeable when browsing the web.

            As I said earlier, it's clearly not a caching problem, there's something causing the gigantic delay for the FW to process my request.

            What should I be looking at?

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • N
              NetworkNubbin
              last edited by

              Just so we're clear, the caching mechanism is working:

              dig pfsense.org | grep Query
              ;; Query time: 39 msec
              dig pfsense.org | grep Query
              ;; Query time: 0 msec
              dig eff.org | grep Query
              ;; Query time: 37 msec
              dig eff.org | grep Query
              ;; Query time: 0 msec

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • N
                NOYB
                last edited by

                How many domains in the search list?

                Use Wireshark to see what is really going on with the DNS queries.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • N
                  NetworkNubbin
                  last edited by

                  @NOYB:

                  How many domains in the search list?

                  Use Wireshark to see what is really going on with the DNS queries.

                  I was only using localhost + 2 domains (8.8.4.4 and 4.2.2.2). When I was watching via tcpdump, it looked like the box queried both DNS servers simultaneously. Is that normal? I was under the assumption it would only use server #3 if no response was heard from server #2 within 'x' time.

                  Another strange thing, the ridiculous latency is now gone, but I haven't changed anything yet…  Has anyone experienced something like this before?

                  Unrelated questions:

                  1. Is there any way I can view what's in the cache?
                  2. What's the default number of entries for the cache? It doesn't seem to maintain a very large amount... What's the 'supported' way of increasing the size?

                  Thanks again,

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • N
                    NOYB
                    last edited by

                    Yes, pfSense queries all DNS servers simultaneously and uses the first response.  That is normal for pfSense.  That is my understanding anyway.

                    Look in the query response in tcp dump.  In there will be the TTL.  That’s how long it should remain available in cache, assuming it’s not purged for some other reason.  Don’t know what size limitation pfSense may have but it’s probably more than you’ll run into.

                    P.S. Modified my pfSense forwarder to query the DNS servers sequentially.  My primary DNS server responds quickest nearly every time anyway.  So the additional queries don't really add any benefit, except when primary DNS server is down query responses will be slower.  But that is rare.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • C
                      cmb
                      last edited by

                      @NOYB:

                      P.S. Modified my pfSense forwarder to query the DNS servers sequentially.  My primary DNS server responds quickest nearly every time anyway.  So the additional queries don't really add any benefit, except when primary DNS server is down query responses will be slower.  But that is rare.

                      I wouldn't do that in most circumstances, you'll have much more consistent performance with the defaults, and it's not like doubling, tripling or quadrupling your DNS requests has any notable impact on bandwidth or anything else.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • C
                        cmb
                        last edited by

                        @NetworkNubbin:

                        Unrelated questions:

                        1. Is there any way I can view what's in the cache?
                        2. What's the default number of entries for the cache? It doesn't seem to maintain a very large amount… What's the 'supported' way of increasing the size?

                        http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html
                        and related searches for dnsmasq will find your answers.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • N
                          NetworkNubbin
                          last edited by

                          @cmb:

                          @NetworkNubbin:

                          Unrelated questions:

                          1. Is there any way I can view what's in the cache?
                          2. What's the default number of entries for the cache? It doesn't seem to maintain a very large amount… What's the 'supported' way of increasing the size?

                          http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html
                          and related searches for dnsmasq will find your answers.

                          Thanks. I've found the answer to #2, however I haven't been able to find a way to view the entries in the cache without either:
                          a) using debug mode
                          or
                          b) killing the process

                          Is there a way to do it while it is running normally without killing it?

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • N
                            NOYB
                            last edited by

                            @cmb:

                            @NOYB:

                            P.S. Modified my pfSense forwarder to query the DNS servers sequentially.  My primary DNS server responds quickest nearly every time anyway.  So the additional queries don't really add any benefit, except when primary DNS server is down query responses will be slower.  But that is rare.

                            I wouldn't do that in most circumstances, you'll have much more consistent performance with the defaults, and it's not like doubling, tripling or quadrupling your DNS requests has any notable impact on bandwidth or anything else.

                            Not suggesting that you or anyone else should do this.  Just pointing out that it can be done because the OP asked about pfSense simultaneous DNS queries behavior.

                            As mentioned previously, since my primary DNS server is the first to respond nearly 100 percent of the time the main benefit of the others is if/when the primary goes down, which is rare.  I’ll stick with sequential queries.  Don’t consider mine to be "most circumstances".

                            But let’s not hijack this thread.  I’ve posted details for doing this in another thread where it can be discussed on topic.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.