Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:02:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: james@blacksun.reef.com (James Buszard-Welcher) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, james@blacksun.reef.com, cassy@loop.com, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAID Controller Product Message-ID: <199610021602.LAA05494@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <9610020847.ZM9039@blacksun.reef.com> from "James Buszard-Welcher" at Oct 2, 96 08:47:12 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> OK, this is now officially a DNS question... > > On Oct 2, 8:23am, Joe Greco wrote: > > Subject: Re: RAID Controller Product > > > Wouldn't there be a delay for clients still trying to reach > > > your news server? If they have cached an IP address for > > > news.wherever.com, and then you took it out of Round Robin, > > > would there still be a finite number of clients trying to > > > reach that IP address? (Assuming they aren't looking to your > > > nameserver and you didn't HUP it). > > > > > > I'm pretty sure that Netscape doesn't (or at least didn't with > > > 2.0) query the nameserver each time... > > > > Netscape's loss, not mine. If they do not honour my TTL, that is > > their own freaking problem. > > Gotcha. But for the length of your TTL, would there > be some of your clients going to the wrong IP address? > The one that's down? In a crash? That is acceptable. If I have a TTL of one minute, it is also not too big a deal. They will get a connection time out, and then the next time they try, round robin will cause them to pick a different machine. During a downtime? Remove the machine from the round robin pool in advance. Simple fix. > > Question: > > > > Would you rather have your service entirely unavailable because > > something strange happened and your box panicked and locked up? > > Because some malicious soul hacked their way in and decided to > > newfs your root filesystem? Etc.? > > > > I would rather have total redundancy :-) > > > > ... JG > >-- End of excerpt from Joe Greco > > > I'm with ya. I would rather have total redundancy. > But it seems like there would be a period where you > *didn't* have total redundancy because some clients > would still hit the bad IP address because their > local-nameserver (for instance) has cached RR A > record... do you just lower your TTL to a small number? 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. ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610021602.LAA05494>