also sprach Jason Lim <maillist@jasonlim.com> [2002.01.11.2007 +0100]:
> For our high-end plans and other dedicated hosting solutions, we spread
> out the DNS data across more servers... the point being to make DNS
> resolution more reliable.
the two primary DNS i mentioned are already in different countries
even... in fact, 15 out of the 17 DNS servers are on different subnets
and backbones. so that's good.
> >after all, what use is it to me to be able to resolve e.g.
> >metrosophia.com to its IP, if the IP and the backup MX are down?
>
> Well, there is your weakest link. Make the server to which the IP
> points to failover to another server if it becomes unavailable. This
> has nothing to do with 2, 4, or 8 DNS servers in rotation. Your
> weakest link is that your IP point to a server and if the server dies,
> the IP becomes unavailable. Look at "heartbeat" and many others for
> IP-takeover and other solutions.
being a trainer for stonebeat software too, for instance, i know about
these products too well. the problem is that the failover server's got
to sit on the same subnet, and we can't just duplicate each and every
server because of cost reasons. i might be able to work something out in
the long run, but let's just say that IP connectivity is down when the
server goes down, period. in that case, i don't need other DNS servers,
right?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
obviously i was either onto something, or on something.
-- larry wall on the creation of perl
Attachment:
pgpc2_8J72N8u.pgp
Description: PGP signature