applications to NOT use secondary nameserver ..

[Kevin Darcy]

Claus van de Vlierd wrote:

>b) or perhaps a rather different (and more radical ..) approach is
>    advised :
>
>    giving the router a "route-statement" to the prim. NS and a second
>     route statement of the form
>      "route <IP of prim. NS> <IP of sec. NS> secondary"
>
>     which will be only used if the connection to the prim. NS fails ?!?!?!
>
>
>c) any advice how to make our DNS more reliable in case the primary 
>Nameserver slows down   would be greatly appreciated !!
>  
>
Don't worry, it's automatic. Nameservers keep track of how fast other 
nameservers respond and will prefer faster ones. So if one nameserver in 
a set gets slow, it tends to get less queries and the load gets balanced 
to the other nameserver(s) in the set.

We put our nameservers behind local load-balancers (typically one 
virtual-IP per datacenter), but that's primarily to give us the 
flexibility to move them around, *not* because we need the 
load-balancers to do actual load-balancing and/or failover.

- Kevin