Query re. /etc/resolv.conf...
kpielorz_lst at tdx.co.uk
Tue Sep 6 10:24:40 UTC 2016
--On 06 September 2016 10:33 +0100 Matthew Seaman <matthew at FreeBSD.org>
> Clearly this doesn't explain your observed behaviour. Hmmm.... No, I
> don't see how adding an extra nameserver to resolv.conf could give you
> any worse behaviour than before. I think you'ld have to grab DNS
> traffic with tcpdump(8) and perform some detailed analyses to debug that.
I re-tested this under a 9.3 box - and it works as it should, it's only on
our other 10.3 machines it fails (quite spectacularly compared to what it
> However, my experience is that local unbound is extremely stable and not
> at all likely to fail. Adding extra nameservers to /etc/resolv.conf
> really doesn't get you very much, and just isn't worth the effort.
Yes, we've been running unbound for years (before it was included with
FreeBSD) and it has been very stable. The machine really gets stuffed if
DNS fails though - so the thought of a "free" DNS of last resort in
resolv.conf was tempting, but it looks like on 10.3 here we can't rely on
that now as it makes the situation worse.
I'll have a dig around with tcpdump et'al and see if it turns anything up -
before we just resort to 127.0.0.1 as the only listed NS.
More information about the freebsd-questions