3 ms·

> About the DNS service, I remember a bug where the fallback behavior was not what people wanted (it was something that seemed to be a good idea to systemd deve

> About the DNS service, I remember a bug where the fallback behavior was not what people wanted (it was something that seemed to be a good idea to systemd developers but didn't work well in completely reasonable real-world configurations), and the developers rejected the idea that systemd's behavior was wrong. It was a fallback DNS used when the user has configured nothing. Not only that, it was a default fallback that can be changed by both the distribution package and the user (including disabling completely). It was a tempest in the teapot, by people who have to find some drama.

ahartmetz 6y ago
I think I remember what it was now. Local configuration (DHCP?) contained two DNS servers. systemd-resolved switched to the global fallback when it tried one of the local servers and it failed, instead of falling back to the other local server first. It's a completely reasonable configuration to have two local servers for redundancy as well as load balancing, and systemd-resolved broke the redundancy aspect. It was not about a "wrong" global fallback, but about using it when a local alternative still works. It breaks local network name resolution.
- vetinari 6y ago
  If it behaved like that, yes, it is a bug that needs to be fixed. I don't remember that (not saying that it didn't happen, after a quick search I didn't find any filed issue, #18769 could in theory have similar symptoms), but I remember several threads, including LWN article about the existence of the global fallback.
  - mst 6y ago
    It can both be true that there are a bunch of annoying things about systemd and their response to genuine bugs sometimes leave something to be desired, and that there's a lot of hate for the sake of hate directed at it. This, naturally, just makes everything harder to have a sensible conversation about.
- totony 6y ago
  What you may be referring to is systemd treating resolv.conf entries as identical DNS servers, where they used to be processed sequentially. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 It's a breaking change for some users. I remember experiencing that bug.

ahartmetz 6y ago

I think I remember what it was now. Local configuration (DHCP?) contained two DNS servers. systemd-resolved switched to the global fallback when it tried one of the local servers and it failed, instead of falling back to the other local server first. It's a completely reasonable configuration to have two local servers for redundancy as well as load balancing, and systemd-resolved broke the redundancy aspect. It was not about a "wrong" global fallback, but about using it when a local alternative still works. It breaks local network name resolution.

vetinari 6y ago
If it behaved like that, yes, it is a bug that needs to be fixed. I don't remember that (not saying that it didn't happen, after a quick search I didn't find any filed issue, #18769 could in theory have similar symptoms), but I remember several threads, including LWN article about the existence of the global fallback.
- mst 6y ago
  It can both be true that there are a bunch of annoying things about systemd and their response to genuine bugs sometimes leave something to be desired, and that there's a lot of hate for the sake of hate directed at it. This, naturally, just makes everything harder to have a sensible conversation about.
totony 6y ago
What you may be referring to is systemd treating resolv.conf entries as identical DNS servers, where they used to be processed sequentially. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 It's a breaking change for some users. I remember experiencing that bug.