From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Oct 2 12:53:29 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA01596 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blacksun.reef.com (blacksun.REEF.COM [199.2.91.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA01584 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from james@localhost) by blacksun.reef.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA13918; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:47:52 -0700 (PDT) From: james@blacksun.reef.com (James Buszard-Welcher) Message-Id: <9610021247.ZM13916@blacksun.reef.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:47:51 -0700 In-Reply-To: Joe Greco "Re: redundant news systems" (Oct 2, 12:15pm) References: <199610021908.OAA05796@brasil.moneng.mei.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: Joe Greco , admin@multinet.net (Graydon Hoare) Subject: Re: redundant news systems Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Oct 2, 12:15pm, Joe Greco wrote: > Subject: Re: redundant news systems > > 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. The ifconfig -alias option won't help if your Round Robin servers are on different LANs either... I guess ultimately, as Joe pointed out, you can only minimize the downtime caused by a crash and limit the users affected. > > < 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 >-- End of excerpt from Joe Greco -- James Buszard-Welcher | ph. (847) 729-8600 | "There is water on the bottom Silicon Reef, Inc. | FAX (847) 729-1560 | of the ocean" - David Byrne