From: "Bob Goodwin" <bobgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Ed Greshko wrote:**Bob Goodwin wrote: **I've done "yum install caching-nameserver" and with a few crude tests it appears that it might be working. Is there a file of cached addresses that I can look at and see that they are actually being cached? ** Not that I know of.... However, you can do a "host -v somehost.com" were somehost is equal to a host name you've not visited. The first time you do it you may see something like: Received 194 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 1291 ms But if you do it again, and it is working, you should see something on the order of: Received 194 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 1 ms **Ok, I tried: * *host -v speakeasy.net * *First time: Received 109 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 745 ms Second time: Received 109 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53 in 105 ms That would seem to indicate that it works?I'm not sure it's of much value considering the round trip time to the satellite but I guess every little bit helps. I was timing the "Looking up google.com" or whatever at the bottom of the Thunderbird screen and timing that. It looked faster after the initial trial ...
No - that would include cached images and all that nonsense. Use the
commandline and something like "host nlzero.com", one I bet you have
never touched before. Google you have touched before regularly and
is probably still cached.
Round trip to the satellite? Then the second one did not come via
the satellite. But the delay is incredibly long for coming from
something local. (The first one does look like a satellite hop round
trip, potentially. One hop is a touch over 1/4 second absolute minimum.
Add to that some overhead for communications reliability and the
satellite's processing time, also.)
{^_^}
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
