- From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 12:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Andy Kumeda <andy@intelenet.net>
- Cc: Bernhard.Schneck@physik.tu-muenchen.de, www-proxy@www10.w3.org
On Fri, 30 Jun 1995, Andy Kumeda wrote: > The key here is that each server needs to be it's own primary server. > Therefore, if the server is down, no DNS info can be given out, thus > queries will be sent to the server that is up. I respectfully suggest this is very network-unfriendly. The amount of "downtime" is directly related to the length of the DNS cache timeouts, which means they will probably be set incredibly low - 2 minutes? 10 minutes? It means the servers will be doing much more DNS work than usual. I also find it hard to see how this could handle load-balancing adequately, since it looks like DNS lookups are going to return (in your case) 129.253.16.1 a lot more frequently than 204.182.160.150, since the former is listed as primary for the domain wdc.com. Could you compare the WDC-based traffic loads between the two? I would say this is the best try yet at trying to make redundancy transparant in DNS... but I still think simply having the client test latencies of each server would be the most elegant solution. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
Received on Friday, 30 June 1995 15:55:15 UTC