'emerge sync' not working; sudden rsync hostname problems?

CJayNC · n00b Joined: 09 Mar 2003 Posts: 11 Location: Lexington, SC

Hi All,

I've been using Gentoo (I love it!

) since the end of January, and every few days I re-sync and check for updated packages. 'emerge sync' has always worked for me, until last night.

I've found a fix, but I'd really like to understand what suddenly changed to cause rsync to stop working.

running 'emerge sync' as root now results in the following errors:

Accipiter · Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:44 pm Post subject: Not the Only One

I can corroborate this. I'm having the same problem with rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage . So I did some googling, and what little explanation there is can be found in errcode.h:

CJayNC · n00b Joined: 09 Mar 2003 Posts: 11 Location: Lexington, SC

nukes · n00b Joined: 09 Mar 2003 Posts: 13 Location: Scotland, UK

I'm having this problem also. I tried to do an emerge synce and it won't resolve. I went to a Windows box in the next room (connecting through the same gateway/dns) and pinged rsync.gentoo.org, wrote down the IP and went back to my box.
I added this into /etc/hosts with rsync.gentoo.org and this did absolutley nothing. My portage tree is broke as well so I can't install the software I nedd (I'm new to gentoo and have just spent this weekend downloading piles of stuff for it to get it up to scratch)
It was working up until a few hours ago so I can' see what would be causing it.
I will try and find an open DNS server outside my LAN and see if that works.
_________________
_____
NuKeS

dup2 · n00b Joined: 19 Apr 2002 Posts: 14 Location: lost in space

Got the same problem just 10 minutes ago - for me it was a DNS issue as contacting another DNS server (and setting it in /etc/resolv.conf) worked.

If you need some IP-addresses then here is an output from running
host rsync.gentoo.org 212.40.0.10
which is a query against a swiss nameserver (ns1.tiscali.ch)

rsync.gentoo.org has address 141.71.54.40

rsync.gentoo.org has address 141.225.37.221
rsync.gentoo.org has address 168.187.5.244
rsync.gentoo.org has address 194.97.4.250
rsync.gentoo.org has address 195.149.39.120
rsync.gentoo.org has address 203.16.234.31
rsync.gentoo.org has address 203.16.234.32
rsync.gentoo.org has address 204.89.193.10
rsync.gentoo.org has address 206.169.166.57
rsync.gentoo.org has address 208.41.22.116
rsync.gentoo.org has address 209.213.0.163
rsync.gentoo.org has address 212.224.22.34
rsync.gentoo.org has address 219.111.13.142
rsync.gentoo.org has address 62.138.61.2
rsync.gentoo.org has address 62.146.82.66
rsync.gentoo.org has address 62.146.82.67
rsync.gentoo.org has address 62.146.82.68
rsync.gentoo.org has address 62.146.82.69
rsync.gentoo.org has address 62.146.82.70
rsync.gentoo.org has address 80.239.42.138
rsync.gentoo.org has address 128.227.212.225
rsync.gentoo.org has address 130.89.175.34
rsync.gentoo.org has address 130.207.108.134
rsync.gentoo.org has address 130.225.247.90
rsync.gentoo.org has address 132.229.67.201
rsync.gentoo.org has address 134.147.32.57
rsync.gentoo.org has address 137.226.116.99
rsync.gentoo.org has address 140.105.134.1

You may temporary set this nameserver in /etc/resolv.conf to get the lookup for the rsync right. Be warned - the provider (tiscali) ist NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS!. You better choose another working DNS server

Roguelazer · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:40 am Post subject:

Hmmm.. This may be a related problem, and I want to know what is wrong. Today I went to emerge sync and was unable to connect to the site. Now, unfortunately, every time I emerge sync it just sits there saying

Roguelazer · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:47 am Post subject:

Oh, silly me. I forgot to put the real point of my post, which is the code printed after the 10 minutes or so has elapsed.

perry · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:05 am Post subject:

Having the same problem on my system.

Dark*staR · n00b Joined: 29 Nov 2002 Posts: 21

I am also having exactly the same problems

>>> starting rsync with rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage...
rsync: getaddrinfo: rsync.gentoo.org 873: No address associated with hostname
rsync error: error in socket IO (code 10) at clientserver.c(83)
>>> Starting retry 1 of 3
_________________
------------
Dark*staR
------------

dl1vr8r · n00b Joined: 07 Mar 2003 Posts: 39 Location: SLC

I'll jump in with a "me too". It's been doing this for a at least a couple of hours (as of 23:30 MST)

plate · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:25 am Post subject:

As a temporary fix for those who don't like waiting it out, you can add a line to /etc/make.conf:

Chris Finch · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:29 am Post subject: it worked

thanks for the (temporary) fix,

cheers,

Finchy

ps: curious what was the actual problem.

patan · n00b Joined: 19 Feb 2003 Posts: 66

I think the problem is partly due to the success of Gentoo.

The round robin respons to the dns query to rsync.gentoo.org has grown too much. DNS uses udp 53 for queries and tcp 53 for zone-transfers, but if the response to a query is to big DNS switches to tcp for that query.

The limit is 512 bytes for a DNS udp packet (counting the overhead of the udp header).

So I think the solution to the problem would be to enable tcp/53 (if it's blocked in a firewall or at your dns server) or to shrink the round robin answer to a dns query for rsync.gentoo.org.

svyatogor · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:21 pm Post subject:

I seem to have the same problem. I am also behind a router with 192.x.x.x net addresses, but I've always been using by ISP DNS. For the last few days I was unable to emerge rsync (same as other error messages in the thread). Changing rsync.gentoo.org to rsync.uk.gentoo.org did help, but I'm just wondering what's wrong with Gentoo's rsync?

Accipiter · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:40 pm Post subject: Something changed.

See... this worked before. I happen to be behind a router (and using my ISP's default nameservers, which in and of itself is probably a mistake... long story), as well, but this never stopped me until just yesterday. With the quickfix outlined by the previous poster (I'm using rsync.us.gentoo.org), I've been able to run "emerge sync" successfully.

However, I am very curious. What has happened between then and now which makes these circumstances even arise? I read our friend patan's post... but there are those of us who would like to read this in plain English :wink:

DaFire · n00b Joined: 07 Nov 2002 Posts: 25

I had same problem yesterday.. using a different dns server solved the problem for me

dafire

axxackall · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:20 pm Post subject:

is it possible to change the rsync mirror automatically in a way similar to what mirrorselect does for distfiles' mirrors? Actually, I wonder if anyone tried to modify the mirrorselect script already. If so - then please publish it here. If not yet, than I'll try it myself.

klieber · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:52 pm Post subject:

Folks --

the problem and solution are both described by patan here. This is not a gentoo issue -- it's a DNS issue. The solution is to open TCP/53 on your firewalls.

We are *temporarily* cutting back the number of rsync mirrors to *temporarily* alleviate the problem. However, this is a *temporary* solution.

At some point, our continued growth is going to demand that we put those rsync mirrors back in the rotation.

If we can find another fix, we will, but at this point, the problem is a client-side one, not a server-side one.

--kurt
_________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected

morck · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:17 pm Post subject:

klieber · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:20 pm Post subject:

axxackall · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:37 pm Post subject:

klieber · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:03 pm Post subject:

klieber · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:06 pm Post subject:

Just as a follow up, if your ISP (or whatever network that hosts your DNS servers) are blocking outbound port 53, then this would also likely cause the same problem. Again, it's out of our control, however.

As I said before, we've temporarily reduced the number of rsync servers in the rrset. For obvious reasons (lack of scalability) this isn't a permanent solution.

--kurt
_________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected

klieber · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:13 pm Post subject:

aja · Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:20 pm Post subject:

Gotta say I go with klieber on this one. Using a round-robin DNS resolution is entirely appropriate given the kind of load we are growing into, as is adding new servers. Because of this, the RFC spec calls for the large DNS returns to fall over into TCP.

IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE TO EXPECT AN INTERNET FIREWALL TO HAVE TCP 53 OPEN - Failing to have it open is, indeed, a client-side problem (even, if in the past, it hasn't waved its ugly head).

If Net Admins or users don't want to have it open (as is their right), then there are other options, such as emerge-webrsync.

And Klieber was quite correct to say that people who are experiencing rsync problems that have that port open must be having a different problem (which should be described so it can be addressed).

Finally, I think that hot-trigger flame posts to fairly reasonable (if somewhat terse) support responses are at least as responsible for people moving away from lists as perhaps over-burdened gurus being somewhat short when a thread persists after the solution has been posted.