[PLUG] Redundant and backup

[Josh Orchard]

> Josh Orchard wrote:
>> Well that really just doesn't make much sense to me.  Everyone has a problem with
>> reduntant systems and if you could do it at the router or DNS record part then why
>> doesn't everyone do that?  Would save a lot of people some headaches.  Then again
>> maybe the load balancer and router folks wouldn't have a market then. Ok, LB guys
>> would but gateway and routers maybe less.
>
> Delaying email a few timeouts here and there isn't any big deal, but I'd
> guess that for interactive things (like browsing the web) it wouldn't
> make for the finest user experience - is that the case?
>
> But SRV appears to be only for failover not load balancing, I'm no
> expert but assuming you can place the boxes next to each other (and not
> across the country from each other) failover has no additional hardware
> costs beyond the cost of a serial cable I believe.
>
> --Brent

Ideally I was looking for a way that I could keep two machines in two different
locations but with identical services and files and if one IP from the DNS record
was not found that the host would resolve to another IP address.  There are many
reasons why that one host may not be found.  Cut phone line, building burnt down,
power failure, computer died.  By placing the two computers in different locations
on two different systems you would then have a reduntant backup and running computer
that would go online and no one would ever see down time.

The only service between the two computers you would need is a syncing tool to sync
files and you have rsync to achieve that.  It is just odd to me that the industrial
hasn't used SRV at the DNS level to achieve this.  Makes great sense.

I'll just work with what I find.  Just too bad that what seems like the most logical
and easy solution isn't being used.

Josh