primary&secondary

[Joseph S D Yao]

On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 11:36:48AM -0400, Mark E. Drummond wrote:
> 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.

Why ever would it do that???????

To the 'Net, all of your name servers are peers.  Half of the time,
connections should be attempted to one, and half the time to the other.
That is, unless you deliberately stopped the random order of output
that BIND normally gives you.

-- 
Joe Yao				jsdy at cospo.osis.gov - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.