RE: [squid-users] Issue related to using Squid 3.1 or 3.29 and accessing a site that uses a recursive DNS record. (30 seconds to bring up site)

>Probably dns issues not related to squid version in any way.
>This is a known issue that is not related to squid but I'm happy you
>posted about this issue.

>Regards,
>Eliezer

I appreciate the reply, I don't follow your logic though sorry. You think my issue is probably DNS related? I tried to do my best to illustrate that it is not. I gave examples that under my 2.6 builds this issue does not occur, and from my 3.2 box a nslookup and dig return the record instantly. I even gave logs from the 3.2 box showing that it can't resolve the name however it is trying, then 30 seconds later it is able to.

This morning I even went one step further isolating this issue to it being something specific to Squid 3.1 or 3.2. The box I showed my results for that is 3.2(Cent OS 6.4 64bit), I uninstalled 3.2 and I downloaded and compiled Squid 2.6 this morning and it is NOT having this issue at all. (Which BTW this is 3.2.9 I have been referring to)

So now that I have confirmed that compiling 2.6 on the SAME box that 3.2 has this issue, can someone please help me out here and point me in the direction to finding a way to resolve this? Should I submit a bug report for this? This is the first time I have ever run into an issue with Squid before that I could not resolve.

I turned on debug with 2.6 and in the cache.log it does NOT report the same lookuphostip errors that 3.2.9 does when resolving webapps.kattenlaw.com. The 3.2 logs show the error in address.cc when it fails, does anyone know anything I can try to hack to get this to respond quicker than 30 seconds that it currently does? I assume this is only occurring because of the DNS recursion going on with this specific host. All other sites I hit on the 3.2.9 box come up instantly because they all resolve right away..

I would really like to move on from the 2.x and take advantage of how much better the newer version supposedly scale.

Thanks again.
  

===========================================================
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue
Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used
by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
===========================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is
proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or
distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify
the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original
message without making any copies.
===========================================================
NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has
elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
===========================================================
Received on Tue Apr 09 2013 - 13:13:00 MDT