No, it is not correct at all, at least not on systems newer than perhaps windows 95/98.
Easy to check from a command prompt with:
> ipconfig /displaydns
where the TTL for each resolved dns record is noted in seconds and is counted down and removed when the TTL expires.
And yet there are still loads of hits from Windows XP and Vista systems on the old server right now, even though the switch was made more than an hour ago in DNS (and the A records have a TTL of 30 minutes).
Perhaps you should reconsider your view of Windows. :-)
And yet there are still loads of hits from Windows XP and Vista systems on the old server right now, even though the switch was made more than an hour ago in DNS (and the A records have a TTL of 30 minutes).
As you've hopefully received from me elsewhere, DNS is pretty much completely broken right now. thunderware.xs4all.nl is serving out the new address, but void.i-lan.nl is serving out the old address; which one people are getting is going to be pretty much random. This isn't Windows' fault.
As you've hopefully received from me elsewhere, DNS is pretty much completely broken right now. thunderware.xs4all.nl is serving out the new address, but void.i-lan.nl is serving out the old address; which one people are getting is going to be pretty much random. This isn't Windows' fault.
Yup, fixed now. :oops:
There are still plenty of hits on the old address, though. We'll see in the next half hour (TTL time) what the score is...
Has/had the IRC chat been taken over? I was in there earlier and the subject was 'Twilight Appreciation society' and there appeared to be 2 french schoolgirls asking about my penis.
I thought it was mile and Boozy in disguise until the FBI came knockin.
Has/had the IRC chat been taken over? I was in there earlier and the subject was 'Twilight Appreciation society' and there appeared to be 2 french schoolgirls asking about my penis.
I thought it was mile and Boozy in disguise until the FBI came knockin.
Check the chat logs tomorrow
nah, this has been going on for the last three or four days, a bunch of foul mouthed American 8 year olds.
There are still plenty of hits on the old address, though. We'll see in the next half hour (TTL time) what the score is...
What did you see after the expected TTL time passed?
I still claim that Windows does respect the dns record TTL stamp. If I am right then perhaps you should reconsider your views of Windows. ;)
For the real interested ones, see below. :) I was lucky to get a resolved record from my dns server with a low TTL the first time.
C:\>ipconfig /flushdns
Windows IP Configuration
Successfully flushed the DNS Resolver Cache.
C:\>ping www.worldofspectrum.org -n 1
Pinging www.worldofspectrum.org [194.109.216.226] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.109.216.226: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55
C:\>ipconfig /displaydns
Windows IP Configuration
www.worldofspectrum.org
----------------------------------------
Record Name . . . . . : www.worldofspectrum.org
Record Type . . . . . : 1
Time To Live . . . . : [B]21[/B]
Data Length . . . . . : 4
Section . . . . . . . : Answer
A (Host) Record . . . : 194.109.216.226
[B](WAITED SOME TIME)[/B]
C:\>ping www.worldofspectrum.org -n 1
Pinging www.worldofspectrum.org [194.109.216.226] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 194.109.216.226: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=55
C:\>ipconfig /displaydns
Windows IP Configuration
www.worldofspectrum.org
----------------------------------------
Record Name . . . . . : www.worldofspectrum.org
Record Type . . . . . : 1
Time To Live . . . . : [B]1760[/B]
Data Length . . . . . : 4
Section . . . . . . . : Answer
A (Host) Record . . . : 194.109.216.226
And for the real proof and for the really interested ones.. Here is the output from windump (Windows port of classic tcpdump) at the same time, notice that a new dns recursive resolve is sent after the TTL has expired.
C:\tools>windump -i 2 -n udp port 53 or icmp
windump: listening on \Device\NPF_{14020F23-2912-4011-88E6-EF022DCB8CF5}
00:48:52.022203 IP 192.168.0.1.1156 > 192.168.0.254.53: 51087+ A? www.worldofspectrum.org. (41)
00:48:52.030875 IP 192.168.0.254.53 > 192.168.0.1.1156: 51087 1/2/2 A[|domain]
00:48:52.035932 IP 192.168.0.1 > 194.109.216.226: ICMP echo request, id 512, seq 5376, length 40
00:48:52.065224 IP 194.109.216.226 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 512, seq 5376, length 40
00:49:58.922505 IP 192.168.0.1.1156 > 192.168.0.254.53: 43648+ A? www.worldofspectrum.org. (41)
00:49:58.990202 IP 192.168.0.254.53 > 192.168.0.1.1156: 43648 1/2/2 A[|domain]
00:49:58.995380 IP 192.168.0.1 > 194.109.216.226: ICMP echo request, id 512, seq 5632, length 40
00:49:59.024092 IP 194.109.216.226 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 512, seq 5632, length 40
If anything whatsoever doesn't work, please let me know.
Oh, and I also upgraded the forum software (which didn't quite go as planned, hence the long delay). I don't yet know all new stuff, so please bear with me. :-)
I must say the speed differnce is very impressive. Thanks and well done. :D
What did you see after the expected TTL time passed?
I still claim that Windows does respect the dns record TTL stamp. If I am right then perhaps you should reconsider your views of Windows. ;)
Windows has always respected the TTL. Although as most know I don't like Windows very much, I can't fault its DNS implementation, it works as it should work. DNS is actually a very important part of Microsoft Active Directory, so of course it works. If Windows didn't respect DNS TTLs, Active Directory would not work very well at all.
In cases where TTLs don't seem to be getting respected it is ALWAYS the ISP's DNS server that's failing to respect the TTL. I suspect there's a really bad piece of software being used by some ISPs for recursive lookups. On the whole it'd be better if they just used BIND 9.
Hmmm... can login and get a cookie OK, but when saving sig...
<p>Your submission could not be processed because a security token was missing.<br />
<br />
If this occurred unexpectedly, please <a href="sendmessage.php">inform the administrator</a> and describe the action you performed before you received this error.</p>
Windows has always respected the TTL. Although as most know I don't like Windows very much, I can't fault its DNS implementation, it works as it should work. DNS is actually a very important part of Microsoft Active Directory, so of course it works. If Windows didn't respect DNS TTLs, Active Directory would not work very well at all.
Yes, since MS left netbios/wins as the primary name resolution procotol nine years ago my experience is that DNS (client and server) is functioning good. As you say, windows domains with AD totaly depends on a working dns infrastructure, so it would be very strange to not implement dns record time-to-live.
Perhaps there were problems with dns TTL implementations in pre-windows 2000 os versions (nt/9x), but I do not remember having heard of such?
Comments
Yes, there's a 1Mb hard limit listed on the uploads page. :-)
You should notice a rather enormous speed increase, though. :-)
D'oh!
Bugger. Traditional FTP is ok - ys94.tar.gz
Yes, the server on the old IP address received your file without problems. :p
You may wish to update that.
And yet there are still loads of hits from Windows XP and Vista systems on the old server right now, even though the switch was made more than an hour ago in DNS (and the A records have a TTL of 30 minutes).
Perhaps you should reconsider your view of Windows. :-)
Let's try it again...
Also, just FTP'd to the right IP - I think...
Edit: Yay :)
Indeedy, arrived safely!
Good stuff! Tomorrow will be Intense New Webpage Making Night for me :)
As you've hopefully received from me elsewhere, DNS is pretty much completely broken right now. thunderware.xs4all.nl is serving out the new address, but void.i-lan.nl is serving out the old address; which one people are getting is going to be pretty much random. This isn't Windows' fault.
Yup, fixed now. :oops:
There are still plenty of hits on the old address, though. We'll see in the next half hour (TTL time) what the score is...
....no Cornish Davey?
stranger and stranger
I thought it was mile and Boozy in disguise until the FBI came knockin.
Check the chat logs tomorrow
It's all different!!!! "Your Notifications" ????WHAAaaaaaa? ;-)
It was a shock to get the message telling about the move. Took a snap of it and am posting here for posterior's sake ... errr
Powered by vBulletin? Version 3.8.3
Copyright ?2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
nah, this has been going on for the last three or four days, a bunch of foul mouthed American 8 year olds.
Wait 30 years ... maybe the Freedom Of Information Act will cover the logs by then.
What did you see after the expected TTL time passed?
I still claim that Windows does respect the dns record TTL stamp. If I am right then perhaps you should reconsider your views of Windows. ;)
For the real interested ones, see below. :) I was lucky to get a resolved record from my dns server with a low TTL the first time.
C:\>ipconfig /flushdns Windows IP Configuration Successfully flushed the DNS Resolver Cache. C:\>ping www.worldofspectrum.org -n 1 Pinging www.worldofspectrum.org [194.109.216.226] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 194.109.216.226: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=55 C:\>ipconfig /displaydns Windows IP Configuration www.worldofspectrum.org ---------------------------------------- Record Name . . . . . : www.worldofspectrum.org Record Type . . . . . : 1 Time To Live . . . . : [B]21[/B] Data Length . . . . . : 4 Section . . . . . . . : Answer A (Host) Record . . . : 194.109.216.226 [B](WAITED SOME TIME)[/B] C:\>ping www.worldofspectrum.org -n 1 Pinging www.worldofspectrum.org [194.109.216.226] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 194.109.216.226: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=55 C:\>ipconfig /displaydns Windows IP Configuration www.worldofspectrum.org ---------------------------------------- Record Name . . . . . : www.worldofspectrum.org Record Type . . . . . : 1 Time To Live . . . . : [B]1760[/B] Data Length . . . . . : 4 Section . . . . . . . : Answer A (Host) Record . . . : 194.109.216.226And for the real proof and for the really interested ones.. Here is the output from windump (Windows port of classic tcpdump) at the same time, notice that a new dns recursive resolve is sent after the TTL has expired.
C:\tools>windump -i 2 -n udp port 53 or icmp windump: listening on \Device\NPF_{14020F23-2912-4011-88E6-EF022DCB8CF5} 00:48:52.022203 IP 192.168.0.1.1156 > 192.168.0.254.53: 51087+ A? www.worldofspectrum.org. (41) 00:48:52.030875 IP 192.168.0.254.53 > 192.168.0.1.1156: 51087 1/2/2 A[|domain] 00:48:52.035932 IP 192.168.0.1 > 194.109.216.226: ICMP echo request, id 512, seq 5376, length 40 00:48:52.065224 IP 194.109.216.226 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 512, seq 5376, length 40 00:49:58.922505 IP 192.168.0.1.1156 > 192.168.0.254.53: 43648+ A? www.worldofspectrum.org. (41) 00:49:58.990202 IP 192.168.0.254.53 > 192.168.0.1.1156: 43648 1/2/2 A[|domain] 00:49:58.995380 IP 192.168.0.1 > 194.109.216.226: ICMP echo request, id 512, seq 5632, length 40 00:49:59.024092 IP 194.109.216.226 > 192.168.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 512, seq 5632, length 40I must say the speed differnce is very impressive. Thanks and well done. :D
:)
[highlight]Screw that!!! Who deleted the three word story!!??!!??!!??!!??!!??[/highlight]
Windows has always respected the TTL. Although as most know I don't like Windows very much, I can't fault its DNS implementation, it works as it should work. DNS is actually a very important part of Microsoft Active Directory, so of course it works. If Windows didn't respect DNS TTLs, Active Directory would not work very well at all.
In cases where TTLs don't seem to be getting respected it is ALWAYS the ISP's DNS server that's failing to respect the TTL. I suspect there's a really bad piece of software being used by some ISPs for recursive lookups. On the whole it'd be better if they just used BIND 9.
Looks like it's different enough to break my screen-scraping code for the NNTP gateway. Guess that's my job for this evening then... :-)
Also my sig and avatar changer scripts. Bugger.
Hmmm... can login and get a cookie OK, but when saving sig...
Aha... new hidden form entry... must hack away...
Yay - done. Anyone interested in it?
What??!!???!!? We were headding for the biggie 10,000 posts.
[edit]Ahh you swine it's still there!!! :D[/edit]
Thanks.
Yes, since MS left netbios/wins as the primary name resolution procotol nine years ago my experience is that DNS (client and server) is functioning good. As you say, windows domains with AD totaly depends on a working dns infrastructure, so it would be very strange to not implement dns record time-to-live.
Perhaps there were problems with dns TTL implementations in pre-windows 2000 os versions (nt/9x), but I do not remember having heard of such?
:grin: :-P :grin:
Nah, the size is fine. Too big an avitar will distract from the page content.
Now, allowing for more than 4.9kb I would support. But the dimensions are great the way they are.