Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 14:08:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: admin@multinet.net (Graydon Hoare) Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: redundant news systems Message-ID: <199610021908.OAA05796@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961002135234.8007G-100000@house.multinet.net> from "Graydon Hoare" at Oct 2, 96 01:57:36 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. > < 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610021908.OAA05796>