> "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>
>> DNS isn't always a better solution than /etc/hosts, both have their pros
>> and cons. The /etc/hosts file is very useful for "instantaneous,"
>> reliable, and redundent name lookups. DNS services, espcially in a large
>> service environment can get bogged down. 20,000 hosts doing a lot of
>> lookups can require a dedicated single point of failure. OK, so you add
>> two DNS machines and load balance across them with a fault tollerant
>> load
>> balancer, how many thousands of dollars? For how much information? A
>> simple "clustercpy -f targets pg_service.conf /etc" would save thousands
>> of dollars, increase efficiency, increase reliability, decrease
>> electrical
>> costs, etc.
>
> Um, is there something wrong with having multiple DNS servers in
> resolv.conf? Other than having to time out on #1 before you try #2?
> I'm genuinely curious.
What is the "timeout" of that DNS lookup, before it goes to the second DNS
server?
>
>> Don't get me wrong, DNS, as it is designed, is PERFECT for the
>> distributed
>> nature of the internet, but replication of fairly static data under the
>> control of a central authority (the admin) is better.
>
> You're probably right; clustercpy or rsync would work better if you
> have admin access to all the machines in question. The nice thing
> about the DNS method is that you wouldn't necessarily have to have
> that access on an ongoing basis.
That is, of course, one of DNS' pros, but in an environment where that is
not nessisary, why bother?