"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.
> 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.
-Doug
