On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 02:05:49PM -0400, Rich Pieri wrote: > --On Friday, March 22, 2013 1:31 PM -0400 Dan Ritter > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >The next best method would be to use a group of DNS servers that > >had failover for the service IP address. There's no need for > > You don't need or want failover for caching name servers. DNS > clients have fault tolerance built in.
Usually with a 30 second timeout. I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that that was what he wanted to avoid. > If you shuffle the resolver lists on each client node then you get > the benefits of a load balancer for zero cost. I'm not sure what the benefit is of a load balancer here... Anyway. Do you have any criticism of putting a local caching resolver on each mail server? That's what I do. -dsr- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
