Re: DNS caches that support partitioning ?

[Chris Woodfield <rekoil () semihuman com>]

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 () ianai net> wrote:

> On Aug 18, 2012, at 8:44, Jimmy Hess <mysidia () 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