The normal procedure on internet-connected systems is to
set the resolv.conf file to include at least 2 domain name
servers. Example:
nameserver 139.78.100.1
nameserver 139.78.200.1
Last night, I had to take down our primary DNS for
maintenance and lots of FreeBSD and Li
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 06:32:09AM -0500,
Martin McCormick wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
> Example:
>
> nameserver139.78.100.1
> nameserver139.78.200.1
I always add:
timeout:1
because the default timeout is 5 seconds, much too important to allow
for a smooth fallback.
Ot
On 21 Oct 2010, at 12:32, Martin McCormick wrote:
> The normal procedure on internet-connected systems is to
> set the resolv.conf file to include at least 2 domain name
> servers. Example:
>
> nameserver139.78.100.1
> nameserver139.78.200.1
>
> Last night, I had to take dow
On 21/10/10 12:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Unlike the failure of an authoritative name server, the failure of a
resolver is not really transparent for the Unix stub resolver, as you
have discovered. You may consider solutions using a redundancy at
layer 3 such as VRRP or CARP.
Yeah, we've o
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 06:32:09AM -0500,
> Martin McCormick wrote
> a message of 39 lines which said:
>
> > Example:
> >
> > nameserver 139.78.100.1
> > nameserver 139.78.200.1
>
> I always add:
>
> timeout:1
>
> because the default timeout is 5 seconds, mu
A slightly different, but allied question: we are seeing a situation where (Red
Hat or CentOS) servers with 2 nameservers in their resolv.conf files nearly hang
in name resolution with 2 nameservers listed, but run quickly if one of the
nameservers is deleted from the resolve.conf. Both the ref
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:27:52PM +0100,
lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
> > Other options could be interesting, such as "rotate". See
> > resolv.conf(5).
>
> Nearly off-topic, but how does one specify such options via dhcp?
It depends on the DHCP cl
We have been very successful using any-casting whereby multiple,
equivalently-configured DNS servers are placed throughout the network,
all providing DNS service on the same virtual addresses, and these
virtual addresses are host-routed (i.e. route with slash-32 netmask).
The keys to this working
On 10/21/10 08:26, Gordon A. Lang wrote:
It is actually counter-productive to have two resolvers configured
with this architecture, but to circumvent human nature, we publish two.
There is absolutely no functional difference between the two, and
there is no redundancy value for the second one -
I wrote:
> A new installation of bind9.7.1P2 is otherwise running
> properly and the only reason why I am asking this question is
> that I am not sure how to determine which file or directory has
> the wrong ownership or permissions.
I can hear it now. "WHY DON'T YOU READ THE #*!0-
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:51:53 -0500
> From: Martin McCormick
> Sender: bind-users-bounces+oberman=es@lists.isc.org
>
> I wrote:
> > A new installation of bind9.7.1P2 is otherwise running
> > properly and the only reason why I am asking this question is
> > that I am not sure how t
11 matches
Mail list logo
