DNS caches that support partitioning ?

Chris Woodfield rekoil at semihuman.com
Sun Aug 19 15:00:49 CDT 2012


What Patrick said. For large sites that offer services in multiple data centers on multiple IPs that can individually fail at any time, 300 seconds is actually a bit on the long end.

-C

On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:

> On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:44, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> And I say that, because some very popular RRs have insanely low TTLs.
>> 
>> Case in point:
>> www.l.google.com.    300    IN    A    74.125.227.148
>> www.l.google.com.    300    IN    A    74.125.227.144
>> www.l.google.com.    300    IN    A    74.125.227.146
>> www.l.google.com.    300    IN    A    74.125.227.145
>> www.l.google.com.    300    IN    A    74.125.227.147
>> www.l.google.com.    300    IN    A    74.125.227.148
> 
> Different people have different points of view.
> 
> IMHO, if Google losses a datacenter and all users are stuck waiting for a long TTL to run out, that is Very Bad.  In fact, I would call even 2.5 minutes (average of 5 min TTL) Very Bad.  I'm impressed they are comfortable with a 300 second TTL.
> 
> You obviously feel differently.  Feel free to set your TTL higher.
> 
> -- 
> TTFN,
> patrick
> 
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list