RE: [cobalt-users] Re: RAQ3 as primary AND secondary DNS

[Rodolfo Paiz <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay,

> 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.

The reason that having secondary DNS on a separate server is *not* academic
is that the outcomes of someone looking for your site differ:

* If your server dies and you have secondary DNS on another, still-living
box, customers who try to reach your (or your customers') sites will be told
you are currently unreachable. You still exist, but you're down.

* If your server dies and is the only DNS on the planet for those sites,
customers who try to reach your (or your customers') sites will be told that
you do not exist. NOW you cease to exist... as your customers jump ship.

When you're running a commercial operation with even *one* customer, this
makes a big difference. As a matter of fact, Brent's suggestions make all
the more sense for smaller outfits, since bigger ones can go and create all
this infrastructure by themselves.

I apply (and have recommended to some people) exactly the school of thought
you propose. However, I do so in a home setting, where the only customer at
risk is yourself and not a soul cares if your site is down. But in a
business setting, the results are *very* different.

------
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>