Subject: Re: Why so darn slow...?
To: Tim Walls <tim.walls@pa.press.net>
From: Bruce Lane <kyrrin@bluefeathertech.com>
List: port-sparc
Date: 01/08/2001 07:55:57
At 16:39 05-01-2001 +0000, you wrote:

>> there until it times out at least once, then the SMTP
>> daemon/service/whatever seems to "wake up" and response is lightning-swift
>> from then on -- until the system sits idle for another couple of hours.
>> 
>> I'm baffled. I'm still new enough at SysAdmin duties that I'm not sure
>> where to start. Helpful suggestions would be appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks much.
>
>I suspect that it is trying to do a reverse name lookup on the IP address
>of the machine you are connecting from, but you don't have name resolution
>set up correctly on the machine.  So it waits for the resolution to timeout
>before giving up.

	<snip>

	My thanks to all three of you. I had also asked a friend/coworker about
this (he's been a Unix admin for about 15 years, and has long since reached
'guru' status), and, when I described my system setup, he thought that
inetd and tcpserver might be fighting with each other because both may have
been responding to portmap's signal that SMTP or POP wanted service.

	To check this theory, I reconfigured the mail server to use tcpserver
(part of the ucspi package from Dave Bernstein) for all its TCP services,
then shut down inetd altogether.

	It seems to have made an immediate difference. Response is now
lightning-swift in most cases, with only occasional minor delays on the POP
side (no more than 20 seconds or so). I don't know if it's trying to do
reverse DNS for local (my LAN) hosts... I should probably stick my sniffer
on the LAN and see... but transitioning to tcpserver certainly seems to
have helped.

	For the record, I have also checked to see that the machine looks first to
/etc/hosts before hitting DNS. However, I have not added my primary
workstation (the one I usually get mail at) to /etc/hosts because it has a
dynamic IP.

	What I've done so far is, I grant you, a short-term solution. I've been
looking at xinetd as a replacement for the usual inetd, and I think I'm
going to go with it. It seems to be able to do everything that tcpserver
can, and more. Anyone else on the group used it?

	Thanks much.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies
http://www.bluefeathertech.com  // E-mail: kyrrin@bluefeathertech.com
Amateur Radio: WD6EOS since Dec. '77 (Extra class as of June-2K)
"I'll get a life when someone demonstrates to me that it would be
superior to what I have now..." (Gym Z. Quirk, aka Taki Kogoma).