Weblog entry #3 for mindmerge
See all weblog entries made by mindmerge.
#3
resolvconf
Posted by mindmerge on Fri 8 Sep 2006 at 01:01
First let me give thanks to the person that spent the time working on resolvconf in the first place. I appreciate your effort and support to the community which has helped to propel my career forward!
Second, let me ask... WTF! We go from a simple text file with input that my 10 (ten not two) year old boy can follow to a utility that accepts overly complicated syntax and dynamicly generates the file.
I read up on the reason for the change however I still rip it out of the recommended package list (aptitude) for my servers whenever a package (email) may call for it. I do this not out of spite or the resistance to change. I do this merely because I have seen unintended results from this utility on numerous servers tested on. I am quite happy with the static resolv.conf file which ALWAYS works as intended.
Please someone tell me why I would A) want to run this on my servers and B) how does one guarantee the same 'expected' functionality. To me this utility seems more useful in a laptop/wifi scenario. Am I incorrect?
Second, let me ask... WTF! We go from a simple text file with input that my 10 (ten not two) year old boy can follow to a utility that accepts overly complicated syntax and dynamicly generates the file.
I read up on the reason for the change however I still rip it out of the recommended package list (aptitude) for my servers whenever a package (email) may call for it. I do this not out of spite or the resistance to change. I do this merely because I have seen unintended results from this utility on numerous servers tested on. I am quite happy with the static resolv.conf file which ALWAYS works as intended.
Please someone tell me why I would A) want to run this on my servers and B) how does one guarantee the same 'expected' functionality. To me this utility seems more useful in a laptop/wifi scenario. Am I incorrect?
Comments on this Entry
The two scenarios I've experienced in which resolvconf functionality has been useful on servers was i) a server plugged into two different networks where ifup/down can be used to switch between active networks without having to manually update any files. ii) having a local cacheing nameserver proxy - bringing it up automatically adds itself to resolve.conf, bringing it down removes it.
I don't think it's fair to accuse resolvconf of having complicated configuration syntax though. Aside from the nameserver/namservers change, it's the normal resolv.conf syntax prefixed with "dns-"
I don't think it's fair to accuse resolvconf of having complicated configuration syntax though. Aside from the nameserver/namservers change, it's the normal resolv.conf syntax prefixed with "dns-"
dns-domain example.com dns-nameservers 11.22.33.44 55.66.77.88 dns-search foo.org bar.com dns-sortlist 130.155.160.0/255.255.240.0 130.155.0.0
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Your right it wasn't fair... I was tired and cranky... my wheaties were stale... ;-)
With method "i", what was the goal? Passing data from one network to the other to mitigate potential exposure of one network to another? I am merely curious, no need for secretive details.
With method "i", what was the goal? Passing data from one network to the other to mitigate potential exposure of one network to another? I am merely curious, no need for secretive details.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Nothing too weird. We had one "always on" external link, and one faster "on demand" external link. Resolving via the faster network was preferred when available.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Thanks. You've given me some ideas I had not thought of previously to utilize this utility.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Most people wouldn't want it on a server.
Quick check with rdepends, suggests that it is only recommended by packages which do dynamic network reconfiguration, or similar, with a few exceptions.
sendmail-base -- well self inflicted pain if you install this ;)
education-common -- ???
So why is Aptitude trying to install it?
//Simon pats his trusty "apt-get" gently on the head, and says 'I know "blueyonder" wasn't your fault'//
Quick check with rdepends, suggests that it is only recommended by packages which do dynamic network reconfiguration, or similar, with a few exceptions.
sendmail-base -- well self inflicted pain if you install this ;)
education-common -- ???
So why is Aptitude trying to install it?
//Simon pats his trusty "apt-get" gently on the head, and says 'I know "blueyonder" wasn't your fault'//
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
edumakacion wha?
sendmail-base... naw postfix dont like it none!
hehehe
Ok... aptitude is configured with "recommended packages" so this would explain some of the issue. Still there is an error on my part for not catching it during the install on those few machines. Doh...
sendmail-base... naw postfix dont like it none!
hehehe
Ok... aptitude is configured with "recommended packages" so this would explain some of the issue. Still there is an error on my part for not catching it during the install on those few machines. Doh...
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]