|
David,
DNS has inherent redundancy built into the protocol.
I'd use two (or more) geographically diverse DNS servers. In fact, I think the
RFC explicitely calls for this already.
This is going to give more redundancy than LVS will since you eliminate the
network as being a single point of failure.
To answer your question though, yes, I think that using LVS to handle DNS would
be possible, but I really can't think of any case where you'd actually want to
do this.
Cheers,
Raj Dutt
Voxel dot Net, Inc.
"David D.W. Downey" wrote:
>
> Is there a way to use LVS to handle DNS? For reasons I can't go into, my
> company would like to use our LVS to handle our DNS if possible.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Horms" <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Alternatives to MON
>
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:15:18PM -0500, Ted Pavlic wrote:
> > > Joe --
> > >
> > > Sorry for responding to an old thread -- I just noticed it now.
> > >
> > > > the other one is ldirectord.
> > >
> > > The last time I checked, ldirectord was more suited for HTTP-only
> > > providers, yesno?
> >
> > No. Ldirectord works can talk to http, https and ftp servers. Adding
> > extra protocols is easy. There is also a mode where a server
> > can be connected to but no content checking is done, effectivly
> > a ping that can be used for any protocol.
> >
> > --
> > Horms -> 2c worth
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
