On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Chuck Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it really expected that the first DNS server listed in > /etc/resolv.conf should never go down? Operationally speaking, who
No. > can actually rely on listing multiple nameservers in /etc/resolv.conf > and using libc's failover mechanism in any kind of production server? > Because the failover behavior in libc is atrocious--each new or > existing process has to re-do the failover after timing out, and even > long-running processes have to call res_init() to re-read resolv.conf. > It seems that the only sensible way to run a datacenter (or a network > full of Linux workstations for that matter) is to either: > > 1. Make sure the first nameserver listed in resolv.conf never goes > down by using Anycast DNS or some other failover mechanism like > VRRP or CARP on the DNS server side. [root@site03 ~]# more /etc/resolv.conf search example.net nameserver 192.168.1.10 nameserver 192.168.2.10 options rotate timeout:2 > What do the DNS experts say about best practices for DNS failover in > the stub resolver? I'm curious to see what they think here too. ...Todd -- The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
