Simply check the number of records in the database, say by ldbsearch
--show-deleted -s sub -b DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=ncs,DC=k12,DC=de,DC=us
This looks very much like what Amitay fixed for the BIND9_DLZ backend
in:
commit 169db333033b72b6f9ac1e7b23f0f2c151218c1f
Author: Amitay Isaacs <ami...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Feb 9 10:17:02 2012 +1100
dlz_bind9: Do not remove LDB record in subrdataset and delrdataset
This fixes the problem of large number of deleted records in DNS
partitions due to frequent dynamic dns updates from windows
clients. The typical pattern for dynamic update get converted
into subrdataset() followed by addrdataset(). If there are no
dnsRecord attributes left as a result of sub/delrdataset(),
leave the LDB entry for dns name as is. The subsequent
addrdataset() would add the dnsRecord attribute without
re-creating the same entry.
Do you know if for your use case, the internal DNS server, did it only
start happening after this commit?
This code has logic that shouldn't delete an object when just changing
it's IP, but perhaps something else is wrong. I've CC'ed Kai, the
maintainer of the internal DNS server.
commit 673678474791d2f71ba7d8d0f73e20b2a974ae9a
Author: Kai Blin <k...@samba.org>
Date: Sat Jun 1 10:24:11 2013 +0200
dns: Delete dnsNode objects when they are empty
If an update leaves the dnsNode without any entries, the dnsNode
object
should be deleted. Thanks to Günter Kukkukk for his excellent
debugging
work on this one.
This should fix bug #9559
Signed-off-by: Kai Blin <k...@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abar...@samba.org>
(cherry picked from commit 8b24c43b382740106474e26dec59e1419ba77306)
The last 3 patches address bug #9559 - Only initial signed DNS
update for a
works.
Autobuild-User(v4-0-test): Karolin Seeger <kse...@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(v4-0-test): Mon Jun 3 14:16:16 CEST 2013 on
sn-devel-104
--
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Here is the last part of the output from the ldbsearch command. It appears that DNS is still growing rapidly and is being replicated across the servers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# record 117569
dn: DC=NCS-FINANCE\0ADEL:17f969f3-ef19-4c8a-9d27-fa802257678b,CN=Deleted Objects,DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=ncs,DC=k12,DC=de,DC=us
objectClass: top
objectClass: dnsNode
instanceType: 4
whenCreated: 20130831222333.0Z
uSNCreated: 25571
objectGUID: 17f969f3-ef19-4c8a-9d27-fa802257678b
isDeleted: TRUE
lastKnownParent: DC=ncs.k12.de.us,CN=MicrosoftDNS,DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=ncs,DC=
k12,DC=de,DC=us
isRecycled: TRUE
dc:: TkNTLUZJTkFOQ0UKREVMOjE3Zjk2OWYzLWVmMTktNGM4YS05ZDI3LWZhODAyMjU3Njc4Yg==
name:: TkNTLUZJTkFOQ0UKREVMOjE3Zjk2OWYzLWVmMTktNGM4YS05ZDI3LWZhODAyMjU3Njc4Yg=
=
whenChanged: 20130831232332.0Z
uSNChanged: 25584
distinguishedName: DC=NCS-FINANCE\0ADEL:17f969f3-ef19-4c8a-9d27-fa802257678b,C
N=Deleted Objects,DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=ncs,DC=k12,DC=de,DC=us
# returned 117569 records
# 117569 entries
# 0 referrals
So .. is there a way to clean up the DNS issues without wiping the servers? I did not get exactly the same results on both samba4 AD DC's. One server reported 117569 records, the other 117562. Could be a timing issue given how quickly the database is growing?
We didn't even build our samba4 domain until approximately Aug 24/2013 so definitely after the commit date.
Sincerely,
Dave Hopkins