primary&secondary

[Mark E. Drummond]

John Narron wrote:
> 
> There's nothing stopping you from doing this, but it completely
> defeats the whole purpose of having 2 or more name servers.  The
> whole idea is that if one nameserver fails for whatever reason
> (hardware failure, software failure, admin failure, earthquake,
> tornado, alien invasion, world coming to an end, etc.), then you
> have another nameserver to take over while you get the other one
> working again.  See also: redundancy.

I would not consider a secondary to be redundant ... not when every DNS
request still goes to the dead primary (dependant on your list of
resolvers of course) and therefore takes ~60secs to time out before
"failing over" ... that's not fail over, that's failure.

-- 
Mark Drummond|ICQ#19153754|mailto:mark.drummond at rmc.ca
UNIX System Administrator|Royal Military College of Canada
The Kingston Linux Users Group|http://signals.rmc.ca/klug/
Saving the World ... One CPU at a Time

Please excuse me if I am terse. I answer dozens of emails every day.