Am Tue, 9 May 2017 20:37:16 +0200
Post by Lennart Poettering Post by Kai Krakow
Am Sat, 6 May 2017 14:22:21 +0200
Post by Kai Krakow
Am Fri, 5 May 2017 20:18:41 +0200
Post by Kai Krakow
Fixed by restarting the router. The cable modem seems to be buggy
with UDP packets after a lot of uptime: it simply silently drops UDP
packets at regular intervals, WebUI was also very slow, probably a
I'll follow up on this with the cable provider.
When the problem starts to show up, systemd-resolved is affected
more by this than direct resolving. I don't know if there's
something that could be optimized in systemd-resolved to handle
such issues better but I don't consider it a bug in
systemd-resolved, it was a local problem.
Normally configured DNS servers should be equivalent, and hence
switching them for each retry should not come at any cost, hence,
besides the extra log output, do you experience any real issues?
Since I restarted the router, there are no longer any such logs except
maybe a few per day (less than 4).
But when I got those logs spammed to the journal, the real problem was
the DNS resolver taking 10s about once per minute to resolve a website
address - which really was a pita.
But well, what could systemd-resolved have done about it when the real
problem was some network equipment?
I just wonder why it was less visible when directly using those DNS
servers. Since DNS must have been designed with occassional packet loss
in mind (because it uses UDP), there must be a way to handle this
better. So I read a little bit in https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt.
RFC1035 section 4.2.1 suggests that the retransmission interval for
queries should be 2-5 seconds, depending on statistics of previous
queries. To me, "retransmissions" means the primary DNS server should
not be switched for each query timeout it got (while still allowing to
transfer the same request to the next available server).
RFC1035 section 7 discusses the suggested implementation of the
resolver and covers retransmission and server selection algorithms:
It suggests to record average response time for each server it queries
to select the ones which respond faster first. Without query history,
the selection algorithm should pretend a response time of 5-10 seconds.
It also suggests to switch the primary server only when there was some
"bizarre" error or a server error reply. However, I don't think it
should actually remove them from the list as suggested there since we
are a client resolver, not a server resolver which can update its peer
lists from neighbor servers. However, we could reset query time
statistics to move it to the end of the list, and/or blacklist it for a
Somewhere else in that document I've read that it is well permitted to
interleave multiple parallel requests to multiple DNS servers in the
list. So I guess it would be nice and allowed if systemd-resolved used
more than only one DNS server at the same time by alternating between
them each request - maybe taking the two best according to query time
I also guess that it should maybe use shorter timeouts for queries as
you could have more than one DNS server and the initial query time
statistic should pretend 5-10 seconds, while the rotation interval
suggests 2-5 seconds.
I think it would work to have "10 seconds divided by servers count" or
2 seconds, whatever is bigger, as a timeout for query rotation. But a
late reply should still be accepted as pointed out in section 7.3, even
when the query was already rotated to the next DNS server. Using only a
single DNS server can skip all this logic as there's no rotation and
would work with timeouts of 10 seconds.
That way, systemd-resolved would "learn" to use only the fastest DNS
server and when it becomes too slow (which is 5-10 seconds based on the
RFC), it would switch to the next server. If parallel requests come in,
it would use more DNS servers from the list in parallel, auto-sorted by
query reply time. The startup order is the one given by the
administrator (or whatever provides the DNS server list).
Applied to my UDP packet loss (which seem to be single packet losses as
an immediate next request would've got a reply), it would mean that the
systemd resolver gives me an address after 2-3 seconds instead of 5 or
10 because I had 4 DNS servers on that link. This is more or less what
I've seen previously in my situation when I switched back to direct
resolving instead of through systemd-resolved.
What do you think? I could think of this being an implementation
improvement project in the Github bug tracker. I would be willing to
work on such an improvement given that the existing code is not too
difficult to understand since I'm not a C pro (my last bigger project
is like 10 years ago). Apparently, such an improvement could only be a
spare time project for me, taking some time.
Of course, all this only works when all DNS servers on the same link
can resolve the same zones. Otherwise you will get a lot of timeouts
and switching. I know that some people prefer to give DNS server IPs
that resolve different zones (or can only resolve some). I never
understood why one would supply such a mis-configuration, and it is
mostly seen only in the Windows world, but well: it exists. A warning
in the log when detecting such a situation could fix this. In the end,
systemd-resolved is able to correctly handle per-link DNS servers.
Replies to list-only preferred.