Re: OT: DNS Records
- From: Richard Watson <tinnedmeat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:26:59 +0100
Andy Jacobs wrote:
> 1. Load balancing - albeit in a non controllable way. i.e. half the
> visitors go to ns.domain1.com and half go through ns.domain2.com. (Maybe
> not half, but 'some' proportion)
Yes, that would be too far back really. If you wanted to do something
similar to load balancing you would create an A record for the www host
with more than 1 IP number.
> 2. Redundant - ns.domain1.com is down so requests go to ns.domain2.com
DNS always works in this kind of way. It's one of the good things about it.
> And what about e-mails? Could you get a case where an e-mail lands in
> the popbox on the backup server and the client can't pick it up until
> his machine decides to take the route to the second machine?
Well of course you can have a separate host for the mail as well that
doesn't change.
I don't really understand what you're trying to achieve. DNS fails over
automatically. Nothing else will fail over unless you put something in
place to make it so. DNS doesn't have a priority like MX records do, so
to the outside world there isn't a primary and secondary, only 2 equal
name servers.
One way to fail over would be to have a shortish TTL on the www record
so that if something went down you could update the DNS and fail over to
the secondary host.
--
Richard Watson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: DNS Records
- From: Andy Jacobs
- Re: OT: DNS Records
- From: Andy Jacobs
- Re: OT: DNS Records
- References:
- OT: DNS Records
- From: Andy Jacobs
- Re: OT: DNS Records
- From: William Tasso
- Re: OT: DNS Records
- From: Andy Jacobs
- OT: DNS Records
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: DNS Records
- Next by Date: Re: OT: DNS Records
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: DNS Records
- Next by thread: Re: OT: DNS Records
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|