On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 16:10 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote: > *I just tried copying addresses from pages already visited with Firefox, > then doing "dig some url" and found that as far as the nameserver is > concerned nothing appears to be saved when a URL is accessed with > Firefox? Once "dig" is done access is much faster, not what I expected? I can think of a few possible reasons, just off the top of my head. The first two are for completeness's sake. The third would be what happened in your case. 1. Time lag between browsing and checking, and a DNS record with a short expiry time. Though, I'm not talking about seconds or minutes here. It's more along the line of hours or days. 2. If you browse through a proxy, it's the proxy that resolves the names. If that proxy is not on your PC, you won't have cached the address. 3. Or, you're not using dig properly. > dig http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060824-115149-7379r.htm Dig only researches "domain names". i.e. dig www.washingtontimes.com or dig washingtontimes.com (which may or may not be the same thing - it depends on how the registrant has configured their domain) > Produced the following: > > ;; Query time: 916 msec > ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) > ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 25 15:50:54 2006 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 155 > > ;; Query time: 55 msec > ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) > ;; WHEN: Fri Aug 25 15:50:59 2006 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 155 > > Any thoughts on what is happening, what I've not done right? You've got a result with no "answer", just statistics about the attempt. The specific query that you tried has no answers for you from a DNS server. Try again with just the domain name. That URI (the one you tried), is composed of a protocol or scheme (http://), followed by a domain name (www.washingtontimes.com), followed by a URI path (/world/20060824-115149-7379r.htm). > I spent much of yesterday experimenting with "Berry Linux," a really > impressive "live FC5" but could not get "caching-nameserver" working > with it, on the 2.8 gHz Dell computer. However the initial dns response > times looked about the same as they do on this old 450 mHz PIII. Not a distro I'm familiar with. I would expect the results to be rather similar, especially if it uses BIND, as well. Not to mention that you have the same physical hardware on both tests. As I said in a prior message, I got similar responses on about four different PCs. There are other DNS packages than BIND, but it's the one with the reputation (a fairly good one, at the moment). -- (Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
