On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:58:10PM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > Another traditional use was for providing named hosts for each service > and then providing all services on one host, e.g. > > myserver A 10.0.0.1 > ftp CNAME myserver > www CNAME myserver > rsync CNAME myserver > > If the load became too high, each service could then be split off onto > separate machines: But this can also be accomplished by using an A record that points to 10.0.0.1 instead of the CNAME... > myserver A 10.0.0.1 > myserver2 A 10.0.0.2 > myserver3 A 10.0.0.3 > ftp CNAME myserver > www CNAME myserver2 > rsync CNAME myserver3 > > This would all be transparent to people using the "ftp", "www", and > "rsync" aliases. Likewise if one is using A records vs. CNAMES here. And it's not totally transparent... Any changes that are made will screw up clients that have the old record cached, until the record expires from the name server's cache -- whether you're using CNAMEs or A records. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Attachment:
pgpoDWaOtflDc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
