Tim: >> When that happens, does it keep on trying the first one first, or carry >> on using the one that responded quickest? I seemed to notice the latter >> behaviour. >> >> For instance, I have my own caching name server, with local machine >> addresses in it as well. I also have a router with its own, non >> configurable, DNS server. I had my computers set to use my name server >> first, and the router second. But found that local machines weren't >> being resolved, the computers were using the router's name server (which >> happens to respond quicker). Les Mikesell: > I think when you run your own caching nameserver with forwarders > set, named will use the fastest forwarder as well as cache > the answers. In my case, I don't have any forwarders set. I see little point in running my own name server (which I began doing because of my ISP's crappy ones), if I simply get it to forward request to the ISP's crappy servers, instead of acting *as* a DNS server. :-\ > When you use the resolver library against remote nameservers it > doesn't remember much of anything although individual applications > might. Though individual applications get the system to resolve addresses for them, they don't read the /etc/resolv.conf file and then run their own DNS resolving routines on the DNS server addresses that they find listed in there. With an exception or two (e.g. Squid generally resolves addresses on its lonesome). I'd noticed that Windows does seem to carry on using whichever nameserver last answered, before switching over to the other if there was a problem. Then, if that happens, it keeps on using the last one that responded. I wondered if Linux played the same trick. Neither OS appears to use both of them all the time (spreading the load), which I can think of as another way to make good use of having several name servers at your disposal. -- (Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
