[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[cobalt-users] Re: RAQ3 as primary AND secondary DNS
- Subject: [cobalt-users] Re: RAQ3 as primary AND secondary DNS
- From: BlackSun <admin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue May 30 16:13:10 2000
[ Brent Sims writes... ]
> While you can install and run a second Bind and/or simply
> cheat and let one Bind handle calls for both primary and secondary
> DNS, doing so defeats the very reason for having a secondary name
> server. If the server and/or connection goes down you literally
> cease to exist.
Yes, but for those that own/lease a single RaQ that hosts all of
their websites, it's academic since if this server goes down you
cease to exist. Having secondary DNS on a separate server won't
remedy this scenario in the least.
> Additionally name servers are memory intensive and
> require a substantial amount of processing power thus it is best to
> have more than one. Two seperate name servers is the bare minimum
> and they should most definately not be at the same location.
I've yet to experience any noticeable performance loss by running
DNS on my RaQ3/3is. I would have to say that the amount of processor
cycles DNS consumes is fractional, at best.
> I recomend that you do as we have done. Provide secondary
> name server service for a competitor in return for their doing the
> same for you. If you find someone who runs about as many webs as you
> or someone bigger or smaller who is willing to work with you, such
> an assocation is very benefical to all involved.
That's very admirable, but again, if the customer only has a single
RaQ, and less than a hundred clients, secondary DNS is a mute point.
> In addition to the two name servers we have running here in
> our NOC, we have two offsite secondary name servers and two offsite
> backup mail servers the only cost of which is our returning the
> favor for a like minded competitor. While you do have to find
> someone you can trust, such an exchange results in both networks
> being much stronger, noticably faster and far more reliable than
> they otherwise would be. It's a win-win situation if there ever was
> one.
Again, this is an ideal setup and I commend you - but you probably
have more than one server and hundreds (or thousands) or clients.
We are talking about a single RaQ3 here...
--
Jay Tingley
BlackSun | info@xxxxxxxxxxx