Re: SRV records - when?

["Neil Carpenter" <primate@mindspring.com>]

Which then suggests that you use a load-balancing solution at the
server-side (load-balancing router or clustering software on the web farm).
Uptime always has a cost associated with it...the higher the uptime you
require, the higher the cost you must be willing to pay.

Widespread implementation of SRV records would not help you in this
situation.  If a server goes down, the server is down -- whether you resolve
it via A records or SRV records is irrelevant.

Neil

(All opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer)
----- Original Message -----
From: <ed@alcpress.com>
To: <dnsop@cafax.se>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: SRV records - when?


> On 10 Feb 2002, at 7:59, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>
> > ed@alcpress.com writes:
> > > This is a problem for me and many other small businessmen
> > > who want fault tolerance for our ecommerce web sites.
> >
> > Why not simply set up a bunch of A records, like everybody else?
>
> That doesn't solve the fault tolerance problem. Web browsers
> are
> not smart enough to move on to the next address should the
> web server at the first/selected address not be reachable.
>
> This forces me do devise an inadequate and extraordinary
> technique for making my DNS smart - each site checking the
> other's health and adjusting zone files accordingly. Then,
> for those running BIND, having the DNS server unavailable
> temporarily as the zones are reloaded. The short TTLs
> that are required cause more bandwidth to be consumed.
> SRV support in the browser would be much better and
> easier.
>
> Ed
>
> > ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
> > Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago
> >
>
>