On Lu, 16 dec 19, 10:14:55, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 16 Dec 2019 at 12:03:58 (+0530), tv.debian@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > One of the PC is serving various services to the LAN, some bypassing > > the router for load/performances reason, > > Fair enough. (I do that between hosts using IPv6 over Cat5, and have > been scolded here for it.) > > > this PC is carrying an up to > > date version of the hosts file. > > But does it need to? If your router runs a DNS server (you say it > does), it can provide that (DNS) service to the PC that's providing > the various other services. Resolving hostnames via hosts file could be significantly faster than using the router's DNS server. > > It's not one hosts file on every > > machines on the network, it's one hosts file with every machines on > > the LAN registered in it on one of the node on the LAN. > > … which just means there are two machines needing the up-to-date hosts > file: the server-PC that avoids disturbing the router, and the router > running a DNS server. Still one more than necessary? In the classic client-server topology the server doesn't need the complete hosts file. Only the client(s) need(s) an entry for the server in the(ir) hosts file[1]. Exception would be of course, if the service provided by the server requires accessing other systems (backup server?). [1] This is probably known by most debian-user subscribers, I'm just making sure we are talking about the same thing. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature