Slow DNS performance

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

I have a server that is a SOA for xyz.com (example). It is not actually
hosting xyz.com's site but a host record points to the real DNS server. I am
also using DNS forwarding for everything else.

It's web server host record was www. Recently a "new" record was added.
new.xyz.com. When new is removed access to www is much, much faster. I've
test this several time.

Why does that happen? After repeated attempts keeping news out allow for
normal performance. Both www and new pointed to the same external web
server.

Any ideas?

Mike

( I have restarted DNS server several times too.)
16 answers Last reply
More about slow performance
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:%23wAeWcFkEHA.3848@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > I have a server that is a SOA for xyz.com (example). It is not
    > actually hosting xyz.com's site but a host record points to the real
    > DNS server. I am also using DNS forwarding for everything else.
    >
    > It's web server host record was www. Recently a "new" record was
    > added. new.xyz.com. When new is removed access to www is much, much
    > faster. I've test this several time.
    >
    > Why does that happen? After repeated attempts keeping news out allow
    > for normal performance. Both www and new pointed to the same external
    > web server.
    >
    > Any ideas?
    >
    > Mike
    >
    > ( I have restarted DNS server several times too.)

    Are the two records, 'new' and 'www' CNAMES? I can understand this happening
    if they are.

    Why not just create a separate zone called new.xyz.com, and provide the
    nameservers on record in the wizard. This way, the resolution will be sent
    to the actual nameservers instead of your machine handling it. You can do
    the same for www.xyz.com.


    --
    Regards,
    Ace

    Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
    so all can benefit.

    This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
    and confers no rights.

    Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
    Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services

    Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
    HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
    A lifetime commitment for a pig.
    --
    =================================
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Ace:

    No, they were just Host records. No CNAME.

    So separate zones will help performance issues then?

    I have a bunch of networks using forwarding in the same way. That seems
    strange to create a new zone for each new one.

    Mike

    P.S. I don't know if this applies or who to talk to about it but: the
    modified HOSTS file from MVPS.ORG. It can drastically slow Win2k Pro's dial
    up negotation. I mean it will stay at "registering your computer on the
    network" for over a minute. Can you point me to someone who can address this
    issue? It is a problem.


    "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:eyqK1THkEHA.636@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > In news:%23wAeWcFkEHA.3848@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    > Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >> I have a server that is a SOA for xyz.com (example). It is not
    >> actually hosting xyz.com's site but a host record points to the real
    >> DNS server. I am also using DNS forwarding for everything else.
    >>
    >> It's web server host record was www. Recently a "new" record was
    >> added. new.xyz.com. When new is removed access to www is much, much
    >> faster. I've test this several time.
    >>
    >> Why does that happen? After repeated attempts keeping news out allow
    >> for normal performance. Both www and new pointed to the same external
    >> web server.
    >>
    >> Any ideas?
    >>
    >> Mike
    >>
    >> ( I have restarted DNS server several times too.)
    >
    > Are the two records, 'new' and 'www' CNAMES? I can understand this
    > happening
    > if they are.
    >
    > Why not just create a separate zone called new.xyz.com, and provide the
    > nameservers on record in the wizard. This way, the resolution will be sent
    > to the actual nameservers instead of your machine handling it. You can do
    > the same for www.xyz.com.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Ace
    >
    > Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
    > so all can benefit.
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
    > and confers no rights.
    >
    > Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
    > Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
    >
    > Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
    > HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
    > A lifetime commitment for a pig.
    > --
    > =================================
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:eNpM2vPkEHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > Ace:
    >
    > No, they were just Host records. No CNAME.
    >
    > So separate zones will help performance issues then?
    >
    > I have a bunch of networks using forwarding in the same way. That
    > seems strange to create a new zone for each new one.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    > P.S. I don't know if this applies or who to talk to about it but: the
    > modified HOSTS file from MVPS.ORG. It can drastically slow Win2k
    > Pro's dial up negotation. I mean it will stay at "registering your
    > computer on the network" for over a minute. Can you point me to
    > someone who can address this issue? It is a problem.
    >
    >

    If you have many, then I wouldn't create a zone for each. If you added 'new'
    with the same IP as 'www', it wouldn't make sense to slow the system down.

    As for the hosts file, the more data in a host file, the slower it will be
    pulling that into cache upon intialization. That is a problem, and is the
    way the DNS client side resolver and cache service works, and no way to get
    around that unless you port it to a DNS server and point the IP to a
    non-localhost like 127.0.0.2. Did you say this is on a client machine or on
    the DNS server itself?


    Ace
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Hey Ace:

    Re: The HOSTS file issue is on the machine itself. A Win2k Pro machine. (I
    use the HOSTS file on my XP machine sometimes I dial out when my wireless is
    down...I don't notice that behavior. But that Win2k machine for sure. Have
    tested it a bunch.)

    Re: Other issue. I deleted then put 'new' back several times. Each time it
    behaved the same. 'new' slowed things down - or seemingly. Is there a tool
    or utility I can use to test and verify this? Maybe, somehow, it is the
    provider?!

    Thanks,

    Mike

    "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:uWqwkLUkEHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > In news:eNpM2vPkEHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
    > Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >> Ace:
    >>
    >> No, they were just Host records. No CNAME.
    >>
    >> So separate zones will help performance issues then?
    >>
    >> I have a bunch of networks using forwarding in the same way. That
    >> seems strange to create a new zone for each new one.
    >>
    >> Mike
    >>
    >> P.S. I don't know if this applies or who to talk to about it but: the
    >> modified HOSTS file from MVPS.ORG. It can drastically slow Win2k
    >> Pro's dial up negotation. I mean it will stay at "registering your
    >> computer on the network" for over a minute. Can you point me to
    >> someone who can address this issue? It is a problem.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > If you have many, then I wouldn't create a zone for each. If you added
    > 'new'
    > with the same IP as 'www', it wouldn't make sense to slow the system down.
    >
    > As for the hosts file, the more data in a host file, the slower it will be
    > pulling that into cache upon intialization. That is a problem, and is the
    > way the DNS client side resolver and cache service works, and no way to
    > get
    > around that unless you port it to a DNS server and point the IP to a
    > non-localhost like 127.0.0.2. Did you say this is on a client machine or
    > on
    > the DNS server itself?
    >
    >
    > Ace
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:OMSsBzbkEHA.1644@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > Hey Ace:
    >
    > Re: The HOSTS file issue is on the machine itself. A Win2k Pro
    > machine. (I use the HOSTS file on my XP machine sometimes I dial out
    > when my wireless is down...I don't notice that behavior. But that
    > Win2k machine for sure. Have tested it a bunch.)
    >
    > Re: Other issue. I deleted then put 'new' back several times. Each
    > time it behaved the same. 'new' slowed things down - or seemingly. Is
    > there a tool or utility I can use to test and verify this? Maybe,
    > somehow, it is the provider?!
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Mike


    It doesn't make sense why creating one record on your internal DNS will slow
    it down. If you delete both new and www, then just create www, will it work
    ok then?


    --
    Regards,
    Ace

    Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
    so all can benefit.

    This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
    and confers no rights.

    Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
    Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services

    Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
    HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
    A lifetime commitment for a pig.
    --
    =================================
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Ace:

    I will try deleting both, putting back www, test it, then put back new and
    test it.

    It is the web page generation that is slow for the ONE web site. All others
    are fine. But that one domain is one their server, then hosted externally -
    like I said.

    I will let you know,

    Thanks,

    Mike

    "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:O2sXr6bkEHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > In news:OMSsBzbkEHA.1644@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    > Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >> Hey Ace:
    >>
    >> Re: The HOSTS file issue is on the machine itself. A Win2k Pro
    >> machine. (I use the HOSTS file on my XP machine sometimes I dial out
    >> when my wireless is down...I don't notice that behavior. But that
    >> Win2k machine for sure. Have tested it a bunch.)
    >>
    >> Re: Other issue. I deleted then put 'new' back several times. Each
    >> time it behaved the same. 'new' slowed things down - or seemingly. Is
    >> there a tool or utility I can use to test and verify this? Maybe,
    >> somehow, it is the provider?!
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Mike
    >
    >
    > It doesn't make sense why creating one record on your internal DNS will
    > slow
    > it down. If you delete both new and www, then just create www, will it
    > work
    > ok then?
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Ace
    >
    > Please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroups
    > so all can benefit.
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees
    > and confers no rights.
    >
    > Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
    > Microsoft Windows MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
    >
    > Security Is Like An Onion, It Has Layers
    > HAM AND EGGS: A day's work for a chicken;
    > A lifetime commitment for a pig.
    > --
    > =================================
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:OtKFSGgkEHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > Ace:
    >
    > I will try deleting both, putting back www, test it, then put back
    > new and test it.
    >
    > It is the web page generation that is slow for the ONE web site. All
    > others are fine. But that one domain is one their server, then hosted
    > externally - like I said.
    >
    > I will let you know,
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Mike

    Curious of your results.

    Ace
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Ace:

    I tried duplicating it and could not. (This is a school) The adminsitrator
    said for weeks their site was creepy crawly slow until I removed 'new'
    suddenly all fixed.

    I am going to have him try it when they get back with 'new' back on.

    Both new and www are pointing to the same IP (like I said) same Mac web
    server. Pointing to the same web site too. Wondering if that makes any
    difference...

    Again I will let you know.

    Thanks,

    Mike


    "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:ewoS9ohkEHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > In news:OtKFSGgkEHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    > Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >> Ace:
    >>
    >> I will try deleting both, putting back www, test it, then put back
    >> new and test it.
    >>
    >> It is the web page generation that is slow for the ONE web site. All
    >> others are fine. But that one domain is one their server, then hosted
    >> externally - like I said.
    >>
    >> I will let you know,
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Mike
    >
    > Curious of your results.
    >
    > Ace
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:Oj$Unk6kEHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > Ace:
    >
    > I tried duplicating it and could not. (This is a school) The
    > adminsitrator said for weeks their site was creepy crawly slow until
    > I removed 'new' suddenly all fixed.
    >
    > I am going to have him try it when they get back with 'new' back on.
    >
    > Both new and www are pointing to the same IP (like I said) same Mac
    > web server. Pointing to the same web site too. Wondering if that
    > makes any difference...
    >
    > Again I will let you know.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Mike
    >

    That's strange....Unless mabye its in the hostheader (or lack of) on the
    webserver. Check what hostheader is in there.

    Ace
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Ace:

    I tested this again with someone helping me. We put back 'new'. The
    performance was a little slower, but nothing like it was before. Remember
    before it was very or extrememly slow. I think adding this record that
    resolved to the same IP DOES affect performance. It is noticable. I thought
    DNS was simply resolving the name. Why is page generation affected?

    The web site is being hosted outside and on a Mac server. You want me to
    find out if they have hostheaders?

    Mike

    "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:Okd5sb9kEHA.896@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > In news:Oj$Unk6kEHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    > Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >> Ace:
    >>
    >> I tried duplicating it and could not. (This is a school) The
    >> adminsitrator said for weeks their site was creepy crawly slow until
    >> I removed 'new' suddenly all fixed.
    >>
    >> I am going to have him try it when they get back with 'new' back on.
    >>
    >> Both new and www are pointing to the same IP (like I said) same Mac
    >> web server. Pointing to the same web site too. Wondering if that
    >> makes any difference...
    >>
    >> Again I will let you know.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Mike
    >>
    >
    > That's strange....Unless mabye its in the hostheader (or lack of) on the
    > webserver. Check what hostheader is in there.
    >
    > Ace
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Ace:

    I talked to the hoster. They are using Virtual Hosting so yes they are using
    host headers.

    Is the problem with them?

    Mike


    "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:Okd5sb9kEHA.896@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > In news:Oj$Unk6kEHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    > Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >> Ace:
    >>
    >> I tried duplicating it and could not. (This is a school) The
    >> adminsitrator said for weeks their site was creepy crawly slow until
    >> I removed 'new' suddenly all fixed.
    >>
    >> I am going to have him try it when they get back with 'new' back on.
    >>
    >> Both new and www are pointing to the same IP (like I said) same Mac
    >> web server. Pointing to the same web site too. Wondering if that
    >> makes any difference...
    >>
    >> Again I will let you know.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Mike
    >>
    >
    > That's strange....Unless mabye its in the hostheader (or lack of) on the
    > webserver. Check what hostheader is in there.
    >
    > Ace
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:ut4dXgPlEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > Ace:
    >
    > I talked to the hoster. They are using Virtual Hosting so yes they
    > are using host headers.
    >
    > Is the problem with them?
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >
    It maybe the hostheader and the way their webserver is accepting the
    connection. I cannot see how having multiple names for an IP affects this.
    We do this all the time.

    One way to test if it is your server is to use NetDIG to find out the
    response time of a query. Run it for both records and look at the response
    times. This will eliminate whether its your server or the hosting company's
    webserver.

    Netdig can be found at www.mvptools.com and is a free download written and
    distributed by our own William Stacey, MVP. Additionally, you'll find his
    posts in these newsgroups as well. Great tool.

    Ace
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Ace:

    I am not as familiar with DIG or Netdig but I have used www.dnsstuff.com I
    ran the test on the site in question. IT FAILED EVERYTIME. Got an F.

    (I am an ex-ISP admin and used it a bunch.)

    I have written the hoster and told him what I found. He should get back to
    me soon.

    I will let you know. In the mean time - maybe a guy like me should not admit
    it, but is there a guide somewhere that can help me understand Netdig's
    output?

    Mike

    "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    message news:eYCuc$RlEHA.324@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > In news:ut4dXgPlEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
    > Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >> Ace:
    >>
    >> I talked to the hoster. They are using Virtual Hosting so yes they
    >> are using host headers.
    >>
    >> Is the problem with them?
    >>
    >> Mike
    >>
    >>
    > It maybe the hostheader and the way their webserver is accepting the
    > connection. I cannot see how having multiple names for an IP affects this.
    > We do this all the time.
    >
    > One way to test if it is your server is to use NetDIG to find out the
    > response time of a query. Run it for both records and look at the response
    > times. This will eliminate whether its your server or the hosting
    > company's
    > webserver.
    >
    > Netdig can be found at www.mvptools.com and is a free download written and
    > distributed by our own William Stacey, MVP. Additionally, you'll find his
    > posts in these newsgroups as well. Great tool.
    >
    > Ace
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    Ace:

    I would like to repond off the newsgroup so I don't reveal the
    organization's name.

    Can I and how?

    Mike

    "Mike Klick" <mike@grayce.net> wrote in message
    news:egTyuDdlEHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > Ace:
    >
    > I am not as familiar with DIG or Netdig but I have used www.dnsstuff.com I
    > ran the test on the site in question. IT FAILED EVERYTIME. Got an F.
    >
    > (I am an ex-ISP admin and used it a bunch.)
    >
    > I have written the hoster and told him what I found. He should get back to
    > me soon.
    >
    > I will let you know. In the mean time - maybe a guy like me should not
    > admit it, but is there a guide somewhere that can help me understand
    > Netdig's output?
    >
    > Mike
    >
    > "Ace Fekay [MVP]"
    > <PleaseSubstituteMyActualFirstName&LastNameHere@hotmail.com> wrote in
    > message news:eYCuc$RlEHA.324@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    >> In news:ut4dXgPlEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
    >> Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    >>> Ace:
    >>>
    >>> I talked to the hoster. They are using Virtual Hosting so yes they
    >>> are using host headers.
    >>>
    >>> Is the problem with them?
    >>>
    >>> Mike
    >>>
    >>>
    >> It maybe the hostheader and the way their webserver is accepting the
    >> connection. I cannot see how having multiple names for an IP affects
    >> this.
    >> We do this all the time.
    >>
    >> One way to test if it is your server is to use NetDIG to find out the
    >> response time of a query. Run it for both records and look at the
    >> response
    >> times. This will eliminate whether its your server or the hosting
    >> company's
    >> webserver.
    >>
    >> Netdig can be found at www.mvptools.com and is a free download written
    >> and
    >> distributed by our own William Stacey, MVP. Additionally, you'll find his
    >> posts in these newsgroups as well. Great tool.
    >>
    >> Ace
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:OSuOthdlEHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > Ace:
    >
    > I would like to repond off the newsgroup so I don't reveal the
    > organization's name.
    >
    > Can I and how?
    >
    > Mike

    My email is, as my posts properties indicate, is my
    firstnamelastname@hotmail.com. Just substitute my actual firstname and
    lastname with no periods, commas or anything else, @hotmail.com. Be glad to
    help you out.


    Ace
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.dns (More info?)

    In news:egTyuDdlEHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    Mike Klick <mike@grayce.net> made a post then I commented below
    > Ace:
    >
    > I am not as familiar with DIG or Netdig but I have used
    > www.dnsstuff.com I ran the test on the site in question. IT FAILED
    > EVERYTIME. Got an F.
    >
    > (I am an ex-ISP admin and used it a bunch.)
    >
    > I have written the hoster and told him what I found. He should get
    > back to me soon.
    >
    > I will let you know. In the mean time - maybe a guy like me should
    > not admit it, but is there a guide somewhere that can help me
    > understand Netdig's output?
    >
    > Mike


    DNS Stuff gives you so much info. To find out more specific info, using
    tools like Netdig will give that to you. Just run it, and choose a DNS
    server, and choose the IP or name you want to check. In the beginning of the
    output it gives you the response time the DNS server took to respond, among
    all the other info it gives out.

    Ace
Ask a new question

Read More

Performance DNS Server DNS Servers Windows