[Pdns-users] High latency on recursion without cache
cyruspy at gmail.com
Tue Jan 27 16:21:26 UTC 2015
2015-01-27 6:59 GMT-03:00 bert hubert <bert.hubert at powerdns.com>:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:33:34AM -0300, Ciro Iriarte wrote:
> > Also, the test traffic was stopped, so the trace file should be complete
> > and cleaner!.
> I don't see anything that is wrong here. From a cold cache, it takes 11
> queries to resolve 2.centos.pool.ntp.org.
> Your network used up the following amounts of time on those queries:
> in 266ms
> in 226ms
> in 184ms
> in 226ms
> in 233ms
> in 267ms
> in 223ms
> in 201ms
> in 224ms
> in 51ms
> in 199ms
> Which together is around 2 seconds.
> If there is a problem, the problem is that your network is pretty far away
> from most servers it appears.
> If you redo your query with the latest PowerDNS test version (3.7.0-RC1)
> you'll get slightly better timing output with --trace, which perhaps could
> tell you a little more.
> On a high-latency network (and your fastest response to anything in this
> trace was 51ms, even if I look at the other queries too), having a warm
> cache is super important.
> Good luck!
Hi Bert, thanks for the analysis!. I double checked all the configuration
(routing/pdns/linux) and everything seems to be OK. It's obviously not a
PDNS thing as a trace using dig still gives pretty bad times
; <<>> DiG 9.8.2rc1-RedHat-9.8.2-0.30.rc1.el6 <<>> +trace
;; Received 241 bytes from 220.127.116.11#53(18.104.22.168) in 1317 ms <---
this goes to localhost for recursion
;; Received 441 bytes from 22.214.171.124#53(126.96.36.199) in 5628 ms
;; Received 153 bytes from 188.8.131.52#53(184.108.40.206) in 2881 ms
;; Received 189 bytes from 220.127.116.11#53(18.104.22.168) in 8346 ms
;; Received 187 bytes from 22.214.171.124#53(126.96.36.199) in 644 ms
What I find weird is that a query to the server 188.8.131.52 takes more than
5 seconds, but a plain ping request gives a RTT of about 177ms. Maybe the
servers are overloaded and I'm over-reacting :P
--- 184.108.40.206 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4187ms
*rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 177.556/178.459/181.044/1.334 ms*
The same goes for the other destinations:
--- 220.127.116.11 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4183ms
*rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 177.125/177.302/177.644/0.565 ms*
--- 18.104.22.168 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4194ms
*rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 187.530/188.211/189.673/0.931 ms*
--- 22.214.171.124 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4276ms
*rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 265.467/269.252/272.820/2.637 ms*
The only other thing I could think of is some kind of QoS issue and to
blame the carrier. It's time to poke the networking guys...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pdns-users