applications to NOT use secondary nameserver ..
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Mon Nov 28 20:41:36 UTC 2005
Claus van de Vlierd wrote:
>b) or perhaps a rather different (and more radical ..) approach is
> advised :
> giving the router a "route-statement" to the prim. NS and a second
> route statement of the form
> "route <IP of prim. NS> <IP of sec. NS> secondary"
> which will be only used if the connection to the prim. NS fails ?!?!?!
>c) any advice how to make our DNS more reliable in case the primary
>Nameserver slows down would be greatly appreciated !!
Don't worry, it's automatic. Nameservers keep track of how fast other
nameservers respond and will prefer faster ones. So if one nameserver in
a set gets slow, it tends to get less queries and the load gets balanced
to the other nameserver(s) in the set.
We put our nameservers behind local load-balancers (typically one
virtual-IP per datacenter), but that's primarily to give us the
flexibility to move them around, *not* because we need the
load-balancers to do actual load-balancing and/or failover.
More information about the bind-users