[Samba] DomainDnsZone Replication Shows 200,000 Objects
achim at ag-web.biz
Mon Dec 23 15:51:27 MST 2013
Can be Samba4 honours the scavenging settings. If so you can lower the
On my first samba4 setup I did a few modifications to an dhcp
updatescript to suse samba-tool dns to delete and recreate dns entries
because nsupdate did not work. After a month i had ~80000 deleted
entries in the dns database. and
had growen to ~300MB with just ~15 clients in the network.
I noticed that the mentioned database file does not shrink by itself. To
lower it's size I use tdbbackup to make an backup of that ldb database
with samba stopped and copy the resulting file back to the ldb file.
After an few month it is now down at ~70MB again. Still alot for such an
Had tried to delete the deleted records from the ldb Database with
ldbedit but afterwards dns was broken, for example i could not create
Am 23.12.2013 03:47, schrieb lp101:
> Appreciate the response. You indicated the items will be retained for
> 6 months. Any possibilty of a parameter being introduced to modify this?
> On 12/22/2013 4:56 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 12:44 -0500, lp101 wrote:
>>> During the samba domain join process I see over 200,000+ objects
>>> that need to be replicated. This takes several hours to complete if at
>>> all. I don't believe this to be correct. I'm currently running Samba
>>> 4.1.0 on several DC's across a couple sites. Tried to join a new DC
>>> using Samba4.1.0 as well but it failed with an error code similar to
>>> one found here
>>> Reverted back to a 4.0.9 build and it completed the join process
>>> without this error. I would like to join another DC but it takes an
>>> excessive amount of time to replicate the DomainDnsZone partition. I
>>> can't fathom this containing 200,000+ objects. My domain consist of
>>> approximately 125 users and 150 machines. Thanks for any help.
>> A flawed fix was introduced and reviewed into our internal DNS server a
>> few months ago, purporting to fix issues with clients not being able to
>> update their DNS records.
>> The fix caused the create of a new deleted record for every DNS
>> transaction, even one that should have had no impact on the database
>> (same IP).
>> The only workaround to avoid creating more is to change from the
>> internal DNS server to the BIND9 DLZ module, but this won't fix the
>> issue with having a database that is drowning in deleted records. We
>> don't have a tool to purge these at this time, and by default they will
>> be kept for 6 months.
>> We do realise we are going to have to come up with a better fix, but
>> sadly nobody has yet proposed a patch to do this properly. (We should
>> probably at least revert the one that was put in).
>> Andrew Bartlett
More information about the samba