OK, What happened to PBL?

[MANN]

S H A Z A M. It works

[Resurection]

I thought this was self-explanatory...

http://www.pblegion.com/announcement.php?f=5&a=12

Ya know Rogue - sometimes you're just an ***. I don't get to check the boards all day everyday, and since I missed the BIG announcement that was posted with SO much lead time, I guess I missed the obvious (to you) so I waited patiently for a day, and then started a thread to ask because I was sure there was a simple answer and that people would be over here since PBL was down (still - over 24 hrs after my first try) and be able to answer.

Thanks for helping point out the less than obvious, I'll be sure to ask you first what that light is that keeps creeping in my windows every morning.

[RogueFactor]

Ya know Rogue - sometimes you're just an ***. I don't get to check the boards all day everyday, and since I missed the BIG announcement that was posted with SO much lead time, I guess I missed the obvious (to you) so I waited patiently for a day, and then started a thread to ask because I was sure there was a simple answer and that people would be over here since PBL was down (still - over 24 hrs after my first try) and be able to answer.

Thanks for helping point out the less than obvious, I'll be sure to ask you first what that light is that keeps creeping in my windows every morning.

LOL.

Dont know who dumped in your wheaties, but thanks for the chuckle.I see youve made it over there now though...so I guess it helped?

Edit: Yes, I am an *** sometimes(more like often, to some all the time.)

[Resurection]

LOL.

Dont know who dumped in your wheaties, but thanks for the chuckle.I see youve made it over there now though...so I guess it helped?

Edit: Yes, I am an *** sometimes(more like often, to some all the time.)

Wheaties? Gee man, have more respect for the Fudge Pop Tarts! I hate it when I get the pack that was on the edge of the belt and only has half coverage of the frosting.

[ThePixelGuru]

The irony actually is, if you cant see that post ...you see the site message "Server is updating".

Quite ironic. You see a message either way. Yup.

No, for a while yesterday the DNS couldn't resolve the host, so you got no PBL error message and no access to the thread. Depending on your browser and ISP you get a generic error message and no contact with the PBL server at all. So no, there was a period yesterday when I couldn't see that post or the site message about the server update. I knew what the issue was, but a person trying to connect during the server outage wouldn't.

[RogueFactor]

No, for a while yesterday the DNS couldn't resolve the host, so you got no PBL error message and no access to the thread. Depending on your browser and ISP you get a generic error message and no contact with the PBL server at all. So no, there was a period yesterday when I couldn't see that post or the site message about the server update. I knew what the issue was, but a person trying to connect during the server outage wouldn't.

That sounds all good, but relies on the assumption of a server outage. Ask BigEvil if you like, there wasnt one(yes, I asked before making the suggestion to Mann). Both sites were live. In fact, if you knew the IP addresses, you could get to both(and still can!).

So, no....it actually has to do with caching. I knew what the issue was, and it sounds a little something like this...

Users generally do not communicate directly with a DNS resolver. Instead DNS-resolution takes place transparently in client-applications such as web-browsers, mail-clients, and other Internet applications. When an application makes a request which requires a DNS lookup, such programs send a resolution request to the local DNS resolver in the local operating system, which in turn handles the communications required."

Adn thats why his client-application caches required being emptied. It only took a few moments for Mann to empty his cache and access the new server/site So a person trying to connect during the non-existant server outage that received an error page was really only having caching issues(as noted above).

Another example of caching...Ive bolded an important part for ya

When one changes the NS records for one's domain or the IP addresses for hostnames of authoritative DNS servers using one's domain (if any), there can be a lengthy period of time before all DNS servers use the new information. This is because those records are handled by the zone parent DNS servers (for example, the .com DNS servers if your domain is example.com), which typically cache those records for 48 hours. However, those DNS changes will be immediately available for any DNS servers that do not have them cached. And any DNS changes on your domain other than the NS records and authoritative DNS server names can be nearly instantaneous, if you choose for them to be (by lowering the TTL once or twice ahead of time, and waiting until the old TTL expires before making the change).

This doesnt even take into account routers and router tables, etc.

[MANN]

WTH is it down again? I cleared my catch, but it still says "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage"

[nmib]

its working for me mann. 8:43PM PST.

[MANN]

for some reason I have to delete all my history/cookies/etc, and reboot IE every time I try to visit that site. Anyone know whats up?

[PsychoBaller]

for some reason I have to delete all my history/cookies/etc, and reboot IE every time I try to visit that site. Anyone know whats up?

May be all the fudge-packing... clogs up das internets over there...



But seriously, ditch IE, and pickup FireFox

[Resurection]

Firefox FTW

[RogueFactor]

Yup, Firefox FTW.

[robnix]

Sounds like an IE thing. Empty your cache and reboot. Thats what I suggest.

No need to reboot.

Click Start > Run.
Enter ipconfig /flushdns
Click Enter

[ThePixelGuru]

That sounds all good, but relies on the assumption of a server outage. Ask BigEvil if you like, there wasnt one(yes, I asked before making the suggestion to Mann). Both sites were live. In fact, if you knew the IP addresses, you could get to both(and still can!).

So, no....it actually has to do with caching. I knew what the issue was, and it sounds a little something like this...



Adn thats why his client-application caches required being emptied. It only took a few moments for Mann to empty his cache and access the new server/site So a person trying to connect during the non-existant server outage that received an error page was really only having caching issues(as noted above).

Another example of caching...Ive bolded an important part for ya



This doesnt even take into account routers and router tables, etc.

Here we go again... Yeah, I suppose one could have gotten to the site by either a) refreshing the DNS entries, or b) entering the IP address directly. However, you "solved" the problem of an individual not being able to get to the forum by linking to a thread on the forum. That's all I was getting at; no need to explain the caching issues to me.

[RogueFactor]

Yeah, I suppose one could have gotten to the site by either a) refreshing the DNS entries,

Is that translation for emptying your cache? Or were you referring to the dns flush?(Both are client-side, not host side).

or b) entering the IP address directly.

According to you, there was a server outage. That wouldnt do any good during a server outage.

That's all I was getting at

You mean that was your intent? Sorry, all I had was the letter of what you said.

no need to explain the caching issues to me.

If we were going by intent, common sense would have told me this is true. By the letter, I wouldnt know that though. You really should have explained yourself better, and re-written what you said to better clarify your remarks.