From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Oct 2 12:09:32 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA28770 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA28752 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id OAA05796; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:08:09 -0500 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199610021908.OAA05796@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: redundant news systems To: admin@multinet.net (Graydon Hoare) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:08:09 -0500 (CDT) Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Graydon Hoare" at Oct 2, 96 01:57:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Joe Greco wrote: > > > You still have total redundancy. You just do not necessarily have > > 100% guaranteed connection attempts. But as far as I am concerned, > > if I have a crash and people can not connect every 1 out of N times > > (where N >= 2) then I am better off than if I have a crash and people > > can not connect every 1 out of 1 times. > > > > So you do everything you can to minimize the chance of them > > connecting to a dead address. > > question: why not ifconfig -alias the IP if/when a server dies? Because I've had headaches with that kind of stuff in the past. I've seen at least two instances of "mystery ARP reappearances" and have generally rebooted to get around them. > < 1 min DNS ttl = more anguish on the nameserver, non? I guess it would > disturb the distribution of the round-robin... but for the length of > your ttl, is it going to choke up #2? > How big is this client? ;) I don't care too much about anguish on the nameserver, if it can't handle a dozen lookups per second (of the same record!) it needs to be rewritten anyways. ... JG