Re: [NANOG] Did Youtube not pay their domain bill?

From: Deepak Jain (no email)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 00:32:35 EDT

  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "[NANOG] Larger packets to save power, was: Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ?"

    > note that joe's example brings up the interface before starting the name
    > server program, and bringing it down if the name server program exits.
    > this presumes that the name server will start very quickly, and that while
    > running, it is healthy. since i've seen name server programs be unhealthy
    > while running, and/or take a long time to start, i'm now considering an
    > outboard shell script that runs some kind of DNS query and decides, based
    > on the result, whether to bring the dedicated loopback interface up or down.

    All deference to this model, we've all seen these kinds of problems with
    name servers. We *can* be certain that bringing a loopback interface up
    or down takes almost no time (with the implied effect to a speaker like
    Quagga). There is *no* reason with a sufficiently deep name server depth
      (depends on your load) that your monitoring script should *need* to
    hurry to test this condition. Every 5-10 or even 15 minutes to see if
    its eligible to bring up, more frequently to see if its eligible to take
    down. This also reduces oscillation.

    This means, bring up/kill off your name server in one cronjob
    (automatically taking the interface down at the end or after a kill),
    and monitor/talk to the interface in another (up function and sometimes
    the down).

    You'll be much happier.

    Deepak Jain
    AiNET

    _______________________________________________
    NANOG mailing list

    http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog


  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "[NANOG] Larger packets to save power, was: Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ?"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD