What Patrick said. For large sites that offer services in multiple data centers on multiple IPs that can individually fail at any time, 300 seconds is actually a bit on the long end.
-C On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: > On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:44, Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> And I say that, because some very popular RRs have insanely low TTLs. >> >> Case in point: >> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.148 >> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.144 >> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.146 >> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.145 >> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.147 >> www.l.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.227.148 > > Different people have different points of view. > > IMHO, if Google losses a datacenter and all users are stuck waiting for a > long TTL to run out, that is Very Bad. In fact, I would call even 2.5 > minutes (average of 5 min TTL) Very Bad. I'm impressed they are comfortable > with a 300 second TTL. > > You obviously feel differently. Feel free to set your TTL higher. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > >