DNS Resolver not caching correct?
-
Maybe I missed something in the dozen+ posts on this topic, but why does it matter? 0ms vs 12ms is barely noticeable and it only applies to lookups.
-
0 vs 12 is not an issues.. But serving up say something via cache in 0ms or 12ms from cache can make make a difference vs say 500ms having to resolve it..
Much of it more of a tech thing vs hey I can notice its slower thing as well ;) Even if going to site xyz took 500ms to resolve its unlikely someone could actually notice the page loading slower if its was .5 seconds slower..
It can be hey I query this from cmd line why does it take 500ms when it should be cache local and be 1ms..
In the big picture I think resolving is the better solution, as long as your cache is working as it should - users are never going to notice anything. And you are now getting the info from the horses mouth so to speak.. And in the long run you can end up doing less queries since your always going to get the full ttl from the authoritative ns vs something that was cached, and you only got a partial ttl and had to do another query later, to only get again a less than full ttl. So while your query might be a few ms shorter, your going to end up doing more queries in the long run..
To actually make a decision you would have to do some real analysis on on your overall types of queries and amount of queries and the ttls you are getting back from if you forward, vs resolving, etc. But normally resolving is going to be the better option. But there are always going to be one offs.. Most users don't understand how it all works, and it comes down to I ask google for host.domain.tld and get an answer in X ms, vs I resolve it and get it Y ms.. where X<Y the gut reaction is forwarding is better.. When in the big picture its prob not.
-
Got it.
-
I could talk about this stuff for hours and hours and hours ;) Its a bit of a hobby/passion with me - my dream job would be just dealing with dns all day.. Vs now only now and then ;) I had a cool project a while back trying to host over 3000 some domains for a major player, etc. Trying to explain to them how its not worth it to try and do such a thing on your own - and how its not cost effective for the bandwidth required and the equipment required and how you can not do it from only 2 locations and provide actually good service - that it needs to be global, etc..
It was a fun project even though it came to nothing in the long run and they hosted it elsewhere - and prob cost my company money.. Not a business we wanted to get it hosting dns, when there are majors with global anycast networks that just better to host with them, etc.
I will say this, I would never go back to forwarding my queries anywhere... I will run a resolver on my own thank you very much.. It gives me the control and the info to do what I want, how I want to do it vs just sending all my queries to X and trusting their responses.. But that could just be me, others are very happy just asking x.x.x.x for host.domain.tld and being happy with what they get back.. That is not what I want - and I would think most people that have taken the step to moving to pfsense vs your off the shelf soho router like that ability as well.
Then can run a resolver, they can forward, they can run a full blown bind with a nice gui if they want, etc. This is one of the best things about pfsense - gives you options!!! And the ability to use such options without having to dive into the nitty gritty of conf files..
Sorry for the rant - but I love this topic, and I am like 6 beers in already.. Stopped for a few after work with a buddy ;)
-
@KOM said in DNS Resolver not caching correct?:
Maybe I missed something in the dozen+ posts on this topic, but why does it matter? 0ms vs 12ms is barely noticeable and it only applies to lookups.
Because more than 0ms shows that its fordwarding too root servers and not resolving from cache. Thats the reason I use unbound.
@johnpoz
I can follow you. I also don‘t want any other resolving my names. I want to make the most I can my self. Thats why I‘m running a home server and pfSense. -
I doubt 12 is from roots, from the authoritative ns ok.. But if your walking all the way down from roots in 12 ms.. Gawd damn that would be freaking quick ;)
Keep in mind that once you have looked up NS for say .com those are cached and do not have to ask "." again.. Just need to ask them for ns of domain.com.
And once the ns are cached for domain.com, I don't have to talk to them again.. just the ns for domain.com asking for host.domain.com
So if the specific record has ttl expired, or has never been looked up before - just have to directly talk to ns for domain.com and ask for host.domain.com
My guess on 12 ms vs 1-2ms response would either be slowing responding cache? Or just had to talk to a close authoritative ns for domain.com.. Maybe unbound was busy is why it took 12 ms vs typical 1 or 2ms? Maybe the ttl on this record is a stupid 60 seconds or something.
-
If its from cache its always 0ms. I sniffed the traffic to check that.
-
If your local to the cache ok, but your not always going to see 0 ms if your client on the network.. Even a local lan introduces some delay ;) Or some small delay with cache answering
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.google.com. 3346 IN A 172.217.1.36;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.253#53(192.168.9.253)
;; WHEN: Fri Aug 30 04:32:20 Central Daylight Time 2019Next query
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.google.com. 3344 IN A 172.217.1.36;; Query time: 1 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.9.253#53(192.168.9.253)
;; WHEN: Fri Aug 30 04:32:22 Central Daylight Time 2019My point is it is possible to see a delay in the response time, even from when cache.
It could be possible, even if your local to the cache - to see a delay if machine is busy, or unbound is busy, etc. etc. Just because you see some small amount of delay does not mean it wasn't served from cache.
If you get back anything other than the full ttl - it was served from cache.
If your doing query over wireless - that could also introduce delay.. Or if your path to the dns is routed/firewalled locally, etc. A better indication of served from cache or resolved would be the ttl you get back
When your seeing this 12ms response - what was the ttl returned?
-
I never saw more than 30% cpu usage and never more than 0ms. How can I check that better?
Where do I see the ttl? I will check that again.
-
when you do a dig, you will see the ttl
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.google.com. 1038 IN A 172.217.1.36See the 1038, that is the TTL returned, clearly that is not the full TTL of that record.. Nobody would set such an ODD ttl ;)
So it was clearly returned from cache. If you see a whole number, 60, 300, 1800, 3600, 86400 for example than that was resolved and you received the full ttl from the authoritative ns. You can always check what the full ttl is by doing a query direct to one of the authoritative NS for that domain.
Mind you, I have a min ttl set of 3600 on my unbound... So if ttl from authoritative ns is less than 3600, unbound will use 3600.. But it will then count down from that, so if I see 3600 returned as the ttl - pretty sure it was resolved, vs from cache.. Unless on the off chance you did the query at exactly when the ttl had counted down to that value ;) So while you might see a whole number - it still could of been from cache - you just got amazing lucky and queried exactly when say the ttl had counted down t 1800 ;)
So if your delay is something other than a couple of ms, and you have a nice whole number ttl - you can be pretty sure it was resolved, and not returned.. Even if you see say 12 ms, but the ttl was like 1432 or something - you would assume that was returned to you from cache - and something else caused the delay.
edit:
Another stat you might be interested in is the cache hit numbers..[2.4.4-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: unbound-control -c /var/unbound/unbound.conf stats_noreset | grep total.num total.num.queries=14557 total.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 total.num.cachehits=12593 total.num.cachemiss=1964 total.num.prefetch=2263 total.num.zero_ttl=2318 total.num.recursivereplies=1964So you can see the total numbers of queries that unbound has gotten since its last restart.. And the total number of hits for the cache.. And how many misses, how many prefetches done, etc. how many returns from 0 ttl (since I have that set) etc.. If your not seeing a large % of cache hits.. then yeah your doing more resolving than returning from cache.. I am pretty happy with 86% cache hit ratio.
Means 86% of the time when a client asked for something - it got returned from cache vs having to resolve it.
edit: People seem to miss the whole point of the cache.. To the local client if you record is returned from cache its going to be couple of ms to lookup whatever.domain.tld, so what does it matter if resolving takes 100ms and just asking google takes 30ms.. Once its cache, your client will be seeing 1ms..
In the big picture resolving can be faster and better because while you have to ask googledns all the time for something that is not in cache, and that might be 30ms (if they have it cached).. Your resolve might only take 15ms to ask the authoritative ns for the record.. All depends on where the authoritative ns is in relation to you, etc. And since your always going to get back the full TTL, you could need to do actual less queries than always asking googledns..
The only time forwarding gains you anything is if they already have it cached.. If your asking for something that is not.. Then it has to be resolved, and you just added the query time to googledns, and then waiting for them to resolve it on top of the time of your latency to them, etc. So what you save a handful of ms here and there? Nobody is going to notice the difference between getting an answer in 30ms vs 200 ;) and that only every comes into play if not already cached anyway.. So 1 of your clients might have to wait couple extra ms for something to be resolved, everyone else on your network will get the cached copy. And if your doing prefetch - the common domains will be kept active with nobody ever seeing the few ms delay to actually resolve it.
If you have the ability to run your own resolver - its just always a better option if you ask me.
here.. I resolved this locally in 139 ms
; <<>> DiG 9.14.4 <<>> www.whatever.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 15212 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.whatever.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.whatever.com. 14400 IN CNAME whatever.com. whatever.com. 14400 IN A 198.57.151.250 ;; Query time: 139 msec ;; SERVER: 192.168.3.10#53(192.168.3.10) ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 30 05:49:31 Central Daylight Time 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75I asked googledns for it - and took 99ms
; <<>> DiG 9.14.4 <<>> @8.8.8.8 www.whatever.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 49654 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.whatever.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.whatever.com. 14399 IN CNAME whatever.com. whatever.com. 14399 IN A 198.57.151.250 ;; Query time: 99 msec ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8) ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 30 05:50:07 Central Daylight Time 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75So you think a client could ever notice 40 whole ms?? .04 of second ;)
And that is only the first client to ask for it, after that its just served from cache.
-
Thank you very much for your help! Keep up the good work.
It helped me a lot to understand the ttl. If I get 0ms its not a whole number:
; <<>> DiG 9.12.2-P1 <<>> twitter.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 57273 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;twitter.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: twitter.com. 1415 IN A 104.244.42.129 twitter.com. 1415 IN A 104.244.42.65 ;; Query time: 0 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 30 16:25:20 CEST 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 72It now works better with my setting yesterday.
These are my hits:
Shell Output - unbound-control -c /var/unbound/unbound.conf stats_noreset | grep total.num total.num.queries=22053 total.num.queries_ip_ratelimited=0 total.num.cachehits=16235 total.num.cachemiss=5818 total.num.prefetch=8910 total.num.zero_ttl=9416 total.num.recursivereplies=5818I also tested you example and wow, this domain took long:
; <<>> DiG 9.12.2-P1 <<>> www.whatever.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 55651 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.whatever.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.whatever.com. 14400 IN CNAME whatever.com. whatever.com. 14400 IN A 198.57.151.250 ;; Query time: 1192 msec ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 30 16:33:41 CEST 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75Cloudflare was quiet fast:
; <<>> DiG 9.12.2-P1 <<>> @1.1.1.1 www.whatever.com ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 12365 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1452 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.whatever.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.whatever.com. 14400 IN CNAME whatever.com. whatever.com. 10732 IN A 198.57.151.250 ;; Query time: 175 msec ;; SERVER: 1.1.1.1#53(1.1.1.1) ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 30 16:34:49 CEST 2019 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 75 -
@mrsunfire said in DNS Resolver not caching correct?:
;; Query time: 1192 msec
Depends where your at in the world to where the authoritative ns and other root servers are, the latency of your connection, etc. etc.
Keep in mind that example so this had to be resolved to even then resolve that.. So yeah those can be longer.. You can see from your 175ms response - looks like 1 had to be resolved, but the other was cached since you got back 10732 so half of the thing you looked for was cached..
you understand that 1000 ms is 1 second - so not sure I would call that LONG ;) in the big picture.. So your website would of take a whole second longer to load then if the dns had been cached. Which still might be 30 seconds - depending on what the site was, etc. and how fast it is, and your connection to it, etc. And now that its looked up for the next 4 hours your cached.. And if you have prefetch on other clients actually ask for that again it could be refreshed in the background and you would never see such a delay again, etc.
-
@johnpoz 1000 is very long. Usualle my sites load instant. I have around 7 ms to google.de (Germany).
-
@mrsunfire said in DNS Resolver not caching correct?:
I have around 7 ms to google.de (Germany).
The amount of time to ping site has ZERO to do with how fast it loads in your browser -- sorry but site pull up in your browser is not freaking loading in .007 seconds..
Keep in mind that once I site is loaded once - much of it could be cached by your browser as well, etc.
1000 ms to RESOLVE something where the authoritative ns for that domain could be on the other side of the planet is not a LONG time ;)
Your in DE? That is a long way from Utah in the US which is where those NS seem to be.. And that is just those.. that is not the others in the chain..
Do you actually understand how something is resolved?
Even if you had .com NS cached, you still had to go ask them... And how far away are they from you for the NS for whatever.com etc. Then you had to go ask the NS for whatever.com for www.whatever.com, which is then a cname for whatever.com so you then had to do another query, etc. Which if your in DE, and the NS are in Utah.. that going to be a tad higher than 7ms away ;)
Do a dig +trace for that whatever.com to see how you get to it, and how fast the authoritative NS can answer you, etc.
-
Yes it gets more clear for me now, thanks.
Heres the traceroute:
1 37.49.100.1 6.696 ms 6.047 ms 6.332 ms 2 172.30.22.97 6.166 ms 6.018 ms 6.383 ms 3 84.116.191.221 8.367 ms 9.098 ms 8.967 ms 4 84.116.130.102 7.959 ms 7.905 ms 7.490 ms 5 129.250.9.29 8.914 ms 8.023 ms 8.070 ms 6 129.250.4.16 8.048 ms 8.483 ms 8.894 ms 7 129.250.4.96 94.929 ms 94.882 ms 96.235 ms 8 129.250.3.189 160.419 ms 160.473 ms 164.702 ms 9 129.250.3.238 160.700 ms 160.501 ms 160.755 ms 10 129.250.2.16 161.365 ms 160.543 ms 160.335 ms 11 129.250.198.182 158.326 ms 158.105 ms 158.365 ms 12 162.144.240.163 182.527 ms 182.299 ms 182.470 ms 13 162.144.240.127 182.288 ms 182.736 ms 183.292 ms 14 198.57.151.250 158.162 ms 159.572 ms 158.137 msSome names are resolved with 0ms now on morning, others I used yesterday not. Why? Does unbound cached more used names longer?
Why stopped unbound this night? Has it something to do with pfblockerNG-devel?
Aug 31 00:00:16 unbound 5433:0 info: start of service (unbound 1.9.1). Aug 31 00:00:16 unbound 5433:0 notice: init module 1: iterator Aug 31 00:00:16 unbound 5433:0 notice: init module 0: validator Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 notice: Restart of unbound 1.9.1. Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.524288 1.000000 4 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.262144 0.524288 7 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.131072 0.262144 54 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.065536 0.131072 98 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.032768 0.065536 68 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.016384 0.032768 43 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.008192 0.016384 28 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.004096 0.008192 2 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000000 0.000001 42 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: lower(secs) upper(secs) recursions Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: [25%]=0.0219088 median[50%]=0.0607172 [75%]=0.116694 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: histogram of recursion processing times Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: average recursion processing time 0.082558 sec Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 3: requestlist max 19 avg 0.542125 exceeded 0 jostled 0 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 3: 1239 queries, 893 answers from cache, 346 recursions, 473 prefetch, 0 rejected by ip ratelimiting Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 2.000000 4.000000 2 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 1.000000 2.000000 4 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.524288 1.000000 9 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.262144 0.524288 45 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.131072 0.262144 236 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.065536 0.131072 366 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.032768 0.065536 363 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.016384 0.032768 248 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.008192 0.016384 100 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.004096 0.008192 10 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.002048 0.004096 3 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.001024 0.002048 3 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000512 0.001024 2 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000256 0.000512 2 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000000 0.000001 152 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: lower(secs) upper(secs) recursions Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: [25%]=0.0239319 median[50%]=0.0555612 [75%]=0.114912 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: histogram of recursion processing times Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: average recursion processing time 0.086276 sec Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 2: requestlist max 28 avg 1.21664 exceeded 0 jostled 0 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 2: 4486 queries, 2941 answers from cache, 1545 recursions, 1580 prefetch, 0 rejected by ip ratelimiting Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 1.000000 2.000000 1 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.524288 1.000000 12 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.262144 0.524288 27 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.131072 0.262144 75 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.065536 0.131072 213 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.032768 0.065536 180 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.016384 0.032768 124 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.008192 0.016384 60 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.004096 0.008192 3 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.002048 0.004096 1 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000512 0.001024 1 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000000 0.000001 71 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: lower(secs) upper(secs) recursions Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: [25%]=0.0237832 median[50%]=0.0553415 [75%]=0.107381 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: histogram of recursion processing times Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: average recursion processing time 0.082412 sec Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 1: requestlist max 23 avg 0.68534 exceeded 0 jostled 0 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 1: 2418 queries, 1650 answers from cache, 768 recursions, 910 prefetch, 0 rejected by ip ratelimiting Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 2.000000 4.000000 2 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 1.000000 2.000000 5 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.524288 1.000000 11 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.262144 0.524288 37 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.131072 0.262144 288 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.065536 0.131072 409 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.032768 0.065536 398 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.016384 0.032768 258 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.008192 0.016384 133 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.004096 0.008192 9 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.002048 0.004096 7 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.001024 0.002048 2 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000512 0.001024 3 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000256 0.000512 3 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000128 0.000256 1 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: 0.000000 0.000001 199 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: lower(secs) upper(secs) recursions Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: [25%]=0.0217342 median[50%]=0.0547917 [75%]=0.115329 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: histogram of recursion processing times Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: average recursion processing time 0.084765 sec Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 0: requestlist max 23 avg 1.41447 exceeded 0 jostled 0 Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: server stats for thread 0: 5246 queries, 3481 answers from cache, 1765 recursions, 1842 prefetch, 0 rejected by ip ratelimiting Aug 31 00:00:15 unbound 5433:0 info: service stopped (unbound 1.9.1). -
not a traceroute a dig +trace
$ dig www.whatever.com +trace ; <<>> DiG 9.14.4 <<>> www.whatever.com +trace ;; global options: +cmd . 27190 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS k.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS d.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS m.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS e.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 27190 IN RRSIG NS 8 0 518400 20190912170000 20190830160000 59944 . DtQjgY6hTjQoBx95E2qR9YHr/VIiwFqkjYjvBuX21XlBEYjlH3Rq0+sF 0XkyzUwp6xq2SXW3ZPgK0SHf2/hv+3fx0sricuQ5mAhvlw9yVVIwQTq5 dr2B0hfs6tfZNiX+CDNMK6DzjEAlX34gnVZmtSuv5KG87PG9ztBoygPd AxobqaiBksHS8DsCNpVwRunZCZ0Wd59LlWl72etkTft779F8YxvIa9B4 MOf497UcW+Wk38utZ4LRtJL0nTk5BeP0jf6oPi95Sp80SgkOGlOAkwvM c10ZiG5NrH0CtBJYQtOpAG4SamwxhxzK1TElq2SZY7lLOTtrFCQYNK53 0Y5yVA== ;; Received 525 bytes from 192.168.3.10#53(192.168.3.10) in 3 ms com. 172800 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net. com. 86400 IN DS 30909 8 2 E2D3C916F6DEEAC73294E8268FB5885044A833FC5459588F4A9184CF C41A5766 com. 86400 IN RRSIG DS 8 1 86400 20190913050000 20190831040000 59944 . ZmaE6S3yTVnYVXNywBnPO1hD4iHQ/DaBiMDi2+mRC88NXTH1Qrsnflnm fIInk6AnQAtl9uS3LM+qXinwCUMrpVGupSi9FQ3QneZgnilRzhyuloxM xJi/22+WulaBE7UzDZJrpA572P3dWBHl296vw3oCoF8OENW/D2Z16gWw xOBJD57Jocnhghm9ONXoE60WPWSOQD9xytzc5vl1oZIRYpmcYsNe1wsq NYm+WUSuM1+AaG0tyjdbwxR23nkRowRxTJyARkc4wcaIEQaNXyEm7Iad ToAyiKVxpCGs2B7JKHuVL9sXsNYo/+awj5yGXuWz1tLBk3teXKgMI0Yu qjSSig== ;; Received 1204 bytes from 192.33.4.12#53(c.root-servers.net) in 12 ms whatever.com. 172800 IN NS ns6217.hostgator.com. whatever.com. 172800 IN NS ns6218.hostgator.com. CK0POJMG874LJREF7EFN8430QVIT8BSM.com. 86400 IN NSEC3 1 1 0 - CK0Q1GIN43N1ARRC9OSM6QPQR81H5M9A NS SOA RRSIG DNSKEY NSEC3PARAM CK0POJMG874LJREF7EFN8430QVIT8BSM.com. 86400 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 2 86400 20190904044529 20190828033529 17708 com. vtK0SnwKj0v250DLs1saXgDLxjCfNIdwgX/HHiCRQtvwxI3gMdZbEkM2 iOCv2Sdzo0dnz4RxN6BqXXbB8ZwWqG632PgCwFZluYzSi+stiZY2RX31 FlFzE2VgSf9xB/cElOJp94o2sYEW/n4Gqp73bPbE/HFcVeklYm0MI0bA JvU= RNHABBI0G00MKABON3HNN10VBLL72I2F.com. 86400 IN NSEC3 1 1 0 - RNHCNLOM2HJP5G1RNIDHEF5664U20CFO NS DS RRSIG RNHABBI0G00MKABON3HNN10VBLL72I2F.com. 86400 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 2 86400 20190905043336 20190829032336 17708 com. pHdhtwlMfX9QPxdOk6xuO4D+naVZOSfIqGqYB1B/QWlCzxRQa97pfUrn sffyo2mChJWntL6XHutDZHB+YGlvBLg4VqvdwUmoeoaZpVqwlSMtAB4x B1cyW+jf0byLvNjJELetC8JFhmH1LpJIRyuvsFhps3f+Nd6RoVUNLWpz FHM= ;; Received 614 bytes from 192.5.6.30#53(a.gtld-servers.net) in 39 ms www.whatever.com. 14400 IN CNAME whatever.com. whatever.com. 14400 IN A 198.57.151.250 whatever.com. 86400 IN NS ns6218.hostgator.com. whatever.com. 86400 IN NS ns6217.hostgator.com. ;; Received 159 bytes from 50.87.144.144#53(ns6217.hostgator.com) in 44 msthat is what happens when you have to resolve from roots.
So sure if the authoritative NS or any of those others in the path are on the other side of the planet it might take a second... Doesnt matter in the big picture - its only once and after that its direct to the authoritative ns for the domain vs going all the way down from the root .
-
; <<>> DiG 9.12.2-P1 <<>> www.whatever.com +trace ;; global options: +cmd . 6497 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS d.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS k.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS m.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS e.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 6497 IN RRSIG NS 8 0 518400 20190912050000 20190830040000 59944 . a18HBLRxbDklfb/5azG80cAJFAwNd4luRiFgFM6QUhVNkCcYfHEPN86t H2TiEwxxwQE+gfKdMFc6F+2GT5MqMgJocYS4hxyai54iMtzN9/HzUxFQ IVeOWU2g2piycqavfFqMp4pfmbESjGj3zBs3BemvD8nS9JVc7PtDnYEN HJ6iYLCSZlLp3HPTOGqd2Kh9uBmujnsVqbUoVWT7H5vT3yblT2J3MdhV XcUYAwl8CneBJGql1VT1ZS5lvGriOnrRuX9evjgHlGZuRk5tiR8oc4aH ndEc28HdihJH4fmj6P0Zq2DnP3KOMV/voHCsF29hEyT3YhpCDng5U99E 994KgA== ;; Received 525 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 0 ms com. 172800 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net. com. 172800 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net. com. 86400 IN DS 30909 8 2 E2D3C916F6DEEAC73294E8268FB5885044A833FC5459588F4A9184CF C41A5766 com. 86400 IN RRSIG DS 8 1 86400 20190913050000 20190831040000 59944 . ZmaE6S3yTVnYVXNywBnPO1hD4iHQ/DaBiMDi2+mRC88NXTH1Qrsnflnm fIInk6AnQAtl9uS3LM+qXinwCUMrpVGupSi9FQ3QneZgnilRzhyuloxM xJi/22+WulaBE7UzDZJrpA572P3dWBHl296vw3oCoF8OENW/D2Z16gWw xOBJD57Jocnhghm9ONXoE60WPWSOQD9xytzc5vl1oZIRYpmcYsNe1wsq NYm+WUSuM1+AaG0tyjdbwxR23nkRowRxTJyARkc4wcaIEQaNXyEm7Iad ToAyiKVxpCGs2B7JKHuVL9sXsNYo/+awj5yGXuWz1tLBk3teXKgMI0Yu qjSSig== ;; Received 1176 bytes from 2001:7fe::53#53(i.root-servers.net) in 18 ms whatever.com. 172800 IN NS ns6217.hostgator.com. whatever.com. 172800 IN NS ns6218.hostgator.com. CK0POJMG874LJREF7EFN8430QVIT8BSM.com. 86400 IN NSEC3 1 1 0 - CK0Q1GIN43N1ARRC9OSM6QPQR81H5M9A NS SOA RRSIG DNSKEY NSEC3PARAM CK0POJMG874LJREF7EFN8430QVIT8BSM.com. 86400 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 2 86400 20190904044529 20190828033529 17708 com. vtK0SnwKj0v250DLs1saXgDLxjCfNIdwgX/HHiCRQtvwxI3gMdZbEkM2 iOCv2Sdzo0dnz4RxN6BqXXbB8ZwWqG632PgCwFZluYzSi+stiZY2RX31 FlFzE2VgSf9xB/cElOJp94o2sYEW/n4Gqp73bPbE/HFcVeklYm0MI0bA JvU= RNHABBI0G00MKABON3HNN10VBLL72I2F.com. 86400 IN NSEC3 1 1 0 - RNHCNLOM2HJP5G1RNIDHEF5664U20CFO NS DS RRSIG RNHABBI0G00MKABON3HNN10VBLL72I2F.com. 86400 IN RRSIG NSEC3 8 2 86400 20190905043336 20190829032336 17708 com. pHdhtwlMfX9QPxdOk6xuO4D+naVZOSfIqGqYB1B/QWlCzxRQa97pfUrn sffyo2mChJWntL6XHutDZHB+YGlvBLg4VqvdwUmoeoaZpVqwlSMtAB4x B1cyW+jf0byLvNjJELetC8JFhmH1LpJIRyuvsFhps3f+Nd6RoVUNLWpz FHM= ;; Received 614 bytes from 192.41.162.30#53(l.gtld-servers.net) in 15 ms www.whatever.com. 14400 IN CNAME whatever.com. whatever.com. 14400 IN A 198.57.151.250 whatever.com. 86400 IN NS ns6217.hostgator.com. whatever.com. 86400 IN NS ns6218.hostgator.com. ;; Received 159 bytes from 198.57.151.238#53(ns6218.hostgator.com) in 184 ms -
@mrsunfire said in DNS Resolver not caching correct?:
(ns6218.hostgator.com) in 184 ms
So you see the authoritative ns are that far away from you - lot farther than 7ms ;)
At any given time you might of talked to something in the path that took longer than normal, maybe something in path was congested, maybe the ns took longer to answer, etc.
But that is how something is resolved - when none of it is cached.. now the once the ns for .com are cached no reason to ask roots for those, once the ns for whatever.com is cached no reason to talk to the gtld-servers.net ns - so you can just go ask the authoritative NS directly - but since its a lot farther than 7ms away from you - there can be delays... But in the big picture makes no matter. Since its only going to be once, and then its cached for the length of the TTL, and if you have prefetch setup and or zero answer - you will get an answer from unbound instantly and it will go refresh its stuff in the background..
So what does it matter if took 1000ms - that is not even going to be really noticed since I doubt a site couple hundred ms away from you is going to load instantly anyway.. Worse case you added a whole second to the page load time (ONCE)
There is little need of concerning your self if a site resolves in 30ms or 300ms, or even 1000ms.. Since once its cached - none of that matters any more. And in the big picture a fraction of a second in addition to the overall first load time of the page is meaningless.
-
Hi johnpoz,
could you post your DNS Resolver, General Settings and Advanced Settings please.
It would be very handy for us all!
Thanks, Perlen
-
Sure here you go
Notice that I have disabled automatic ACLs so you will have to create your own to allow queries.
I have also changed from transparent to static for my zone.. Make sure you actually understand what settings do before changing them.. Any questions on what anything specifically does, just ask. Don't think this is some sort of guide to how you should set yours up.. These are my settings for my network and use case.. Most of them are just default.. Only a couple of changes really from out of the box settings. Which may or may not be good for your actual needs.
Generally speaking - out of the box should be fine for pretty much everyone.
As to the general settings - there are no dns set other than local... Here
