I have 2 w2003 Dcs - both DNS servers Primary and secondary.
I have Clients running XP static Ip and in both DNS servers IP is configured
as Primary and Secondary DNS.
My Primary DNS server went down, all clients are not quering the secondary!
using NSLOOKUP it showed that clients are still querying the primary with a
tomeout error !! all name resoultiond stoped in the organization!
any idea?
tx
NsLookup does not automatically fall through to alternate DNS servers,
it is not a good way to test server redundancy.
If you ping a host, which will use the DNS Client, does the name resolve?
Chris
--
Blog: http://www.indented.co.uk
DnsShell: http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/dnsshell
There is no automatic failover, if the preferred DNS is choosen during boot
it will ignore the other ones listed.
Best regards
Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
Although the link below kind of does
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/320760/en-us?p=1
--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCITP - Enterprise Administrator
MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, MCP, Security +, BS CSci
2008, Vista, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
Microsoft's Thrive IT Pro of the Month - June 2009
Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewGroups. This
posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no rights.
"Meinolf Weber [MVP-DS]" <meiweb@(nospam)gmx.de> wrote in message
news:6cb2911d1052d8...@msnews.microsoft.com...
I would be very interested in any articles you can provide on this. In my
experience I have never gotten the client to failover to the secondary DNS
server. If it does failover after 15 minutes I would think that would be way
too long. Those 15 minutes would be a nightmare to the admin. When I had the
primary DNS server go down I manually changed the order in DHCP and forced a
release and renew on the client just to get them going.
Maybe I didn't wait long enough but at that time you really can't tell
everyone "wait 15 minutes and try again".
TIA
DDS
"Paul Bergson [MVP-DS]" <pbb...@no-spam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23cyrCjR...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
You are correct, found this article from Ace:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/acefekay/archive/2009/11/29/dns-wins-netbios-amp-the-client-side-resolver-browser-service-disabling-netbios-direct-hosted-smb-directsmb-if-one-dc-is-down-does-a-client-logon-to-another-dc-and-dns-forwarders-algorithm.aspx
which includes under "5. DNS Client side Resolver service Query Process":
"""""""""""""""""" If after the query to the first one times out (after 3
tries), it removes it from the 'eligible' resolvers list and then goes to
the next one in the order listed.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Best regards
Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
> Meinolf, I don't believe that is correct. I think there is a 15
> minute timeout and if the primary is unreachable then the client will
> attempt to contact the secondary. If the primary is still alive but
> not answering I don't think it will switch over since it is still
> reachable. I can't find a KB artcile to back me on this though.
>
> Although the link below kind of does
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/320760/en-us?p=1
>Hello Paul Bergson [MVP-DS],
>
>You are correct, found this article from Ace:
>http://msmvps.com/blogs/acefekay/archive/2009/11/29/dns-wins-netbios-amp-the-client-side-resolver-browser-service-disabling-netbios-direct-hosted-smb-directsmb-if-one-dc-is-down-does-a-client-logon-to-another-dc-and-dns-forwarders-algorithm.aspx
>
>which includes under "5. DNS Client side Resolver service Query Process":
>"""""""""""""""""" If after the query to the first one times out (after 3
>tries), it removes it from the 'eligible' resolvers list and then goes to
>the next one in the order listed.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>
>Best regards
>
>Meinolf Weber
>Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
>no rights.
>** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
>** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>
>
You beat me to it!
Cheers!
Ace
This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.
Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.
Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
>> Meinolf, I don't believe that is correct. I think there is a 15 minute
>> timeout and if the primary is unreachable then the client will attempt to
>> contact the secondary. If the primary is still alive but not answering I
>> don't think it will switch over since it is still reachable. I can't find
>> a KB artcile to back me on this though.
>
>
>I would be very interested in any articles you can provide on this. In my
>experience I have never gotten the client to failover to the secondary DNS
>server. If it does failover after 15 minutes I would think that would be way
>too long. Those 15 minutes would be a nightmare to the admin. When I had the
>primary DNS server go down I manually changed the order in DHCP and forced a
>release and renew on the client just to get them going.
>
>Maybe I didn't wait long enough but at that time you really can't tell
>everyone "wait 15 minutes and try again".
>
>
>TIA
>DDS
>
The 15 minutes is the time it uses to reset the eligibility list. That
can be changed in the registry, but I suggest to leave it and find out
why the DNS servers is not responding.
Ace
"Chris Dent" wrote:
> .
>