Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:08:05 +0800 From: pinoyskull <pinoyskull@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bind round robin Message-ID: <4510E8D5.3080401@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4510C99D.2010806@FreeBSD.org> References: <450F8777.7080407@gmail.com> <20060919083955.GB87657@e-Gitt.NET> <45102E4E.80600@FreeBSD.org> <20060919141948.gxpxiuyyskc8w0k8@webmail.1command.com> <4510C99D.2010806@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Doug Barton wrote: > Chris H. wrote: > >> Greetings all, >> ... >> Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>: >> >> >>> Oliver Brandmueller wrote: >>> >>>> DNS round robin is not about redundancy, the only thing you could have >>>> that way is a kind of load balancing (not the most sophisticated way, >>>> though). Whenever one of the servers fails, around half of the requests >>>> still goes there and then times out/gets conn refused or whatever the >>>> problem is. Prioritizing is not easily possible. Probably it helps if >>>> you add one of the IPs more often to the set, but I never tried that and >>>> did not read the docs on this topic, so before breaking your zone first >>>> read the specs, if this works! >>>> >>> Just replying to this bit first, in BIND it does not work to specify >>> the same IP address multiple times for the same hostname. The server >>> will collapse the duplicates into one unique entry when it reads the >>> zone. I am not aware of any other authoritative name server for which >>> this would work either. >>> >> While this /might/ hold true in some/certain situations. >> > > Under the circumstances that Oliver suggested, what I said holds true > in every situation (assuming you are using BIND). The example you > pasted, while colorful, is not actually an example of what Oliver > suggested. If you would like me to write out an example I will, but: > A) This subject is already off topic, and > B) It would more usefully be left as an exercise for the reader. > > >> I /can/ say after 3.5 yrs. of doing exactly this, >> > > Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. See above. > > >> that it does not collapse the namespace into a single IP<-->name. >> > > It might also be useful to note here that nothing about DNS is > (automatically) bi-directional in the manner you imply here. > > I do concur with your suggestion to move this thread to a list that is > focused on DNS, however .... > > Doug > > thanks for the reply guys, although our dns server is runnung freebsd, my problem specifically is DNS, ill try posting my problem to the right mailing list, thanks again.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4510E8D5.3080401>