From owner-freebsd-isp Wed Oct 2 08:51:04 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA16944 for isp-outgoing; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:51:04 -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 IAA16939 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from james@localhost) by blacksun.reef.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA09041; Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:47:13 -0700 (PDT) From: james@blacksun.reef.com (James Buszard-Welcher) Message-Id: <9610020847.ZM9039@blacksun.reef.com> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 08:47:12 -0700 In-Reply-To: Joe Greco "Re: RAID Controller Product" (Oct 2, 8:23am) References: <199610021523.KAA05382@brasil.moneng.mei.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10apr95) To: Joe Greco , james@blacksun.reef.com (James Buszard-Welcher) Subject: Re: RAID Controller Product Cc: cassy@loop.com, 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 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? > 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? -- 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