> "Mark Woodward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> DNS isn't always a better solution than /etc/hosts, both have their pros >> and cons. The /etc/hosts file is very useful for "instantaneous," >> reliable, and redundent name lookups. DNS services, espcially in a large >> service environment can get bogged down. 20,000 hosts doing a lot of >> lookups can require a dedicated single point of failure. OK, so you add >> two DNS machines and load balance across them with a fault tollerant >> load >> balancer, how many thousands of dollars? For how much information? A >> simple "clustercpy -f targets pg_service.conf /etc" would save thousands >> of dollars, increase efficiency, increase reliability, decrease >> electrical >> costs, etc. > > Um, is there something wrong with having multiple DNS servers in > resolv.conf? Other than having to time out on #1 before you try #2? > I'm genuinely curious.
What is the "timeout" of that DNS lookup, before it goes to the second DNS server? > >> Don't get me wrong, DNS, as it is designed, is PERFECT for the >> distributed >> nature of the internet, but replication of fairly static data under the >> control of a central authority (the admin) is better. > > You're probably right; clustercpy or rsync would work better if you > have admin access to all the machines in question. The nice thing > about the DNS method is that you wouldn't necessarily have to have > that access on an ongoing basis. That is, of course, one of DNS' pros, but in an environment where that is not nessisary, why bother? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster