Timeline for Why is the question about multiple A records for a hostname closed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2018 at 23:55 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkAmery It’s broad, don’t think only the browser. Infrastructure: dns; bind? windows server dns? dns appliance? public dns? Now server side, iis? apache? session saved server side? Computer; linux? windows or mac? as they all have a differant tcpip stack, which can impact dns caching. Browser side last there. We could write a book with an answer to that question IMO, as too much dependancy affect the answer. | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 23:02 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @Sven it's broader because if all major browsers sensibly fall through to the next IP if they fail to connect to one of the IPs returned in an A record, then RRDNS is a good failover strategy. The top answer at the second question is incomplete because it just skips that point entirely and assumes that it's necessary to update your DNS record to remove IPs when they become unavailable, which needn't be the case. To determine whether the claim that RRDNS doesn't work as a failover system is actually true, you have to know how browsers behave. | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 18:41 | comment | added | Sven Mod | @MarkAmery: Jeffs question in a nutshell is Can this work, with Not really, and here is why being the answer. The other question explicitly asks for a list of browsers and how they behave. I just don't get at all how you come to the conclusion that the former is broader than the other. The same is true for the third question you linked in your comment. Also, I don't see how the question about how different browsers handle this exactly is relevant to system administration - we don't need this amount of detail to understand the limits of what RRDNS can do. | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 18:18 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @yagmoth555 As for the request for learning materials close reason, it clearly doesn't apply here; no off-site materials are being requested and none would need to be provided in order to fully answer. | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 18:17 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @yagmoth555 So, do you also think that Jeff's question is too broad? Or serverfault.com/q/60553/147556? Neither you nor Sven have yet addressed my point that any question about whether it's a good idea to use DNS round robin as a failover technique is necessarily broader than this one, because you need to know the answer to this one in order to have an informed view on whether it makes sense to use DNS round robin for failover... and yet the mods have closed this while leaving the other questions that are broader than it alone. | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 16:39 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkAmery I removed my other comment, but without any edit from the author I still think its too broad, and I hesitate on the close reason between too broad versus request for learning. I agree with you its an interesting question, but there is no way to get an accepted answer on that question, broad it’s. | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 12:44 | comment | added | Mark Amery | And finally, whatever the merits of closure, this answer gives no indication of why the question was locked; I don't see any reason for the decision about whether the question should be closed to be made unilaterally by a mod and then taken out of the hands of the community. Though that is something that only @womble may be able to explain. | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 12:42 | comment | added | Mark Amery | It seems to me that the asker in this case is being penalised not for the actual breadth of their question - which is not really that broad, and is far narrower than other questions on the topic - but for acknowledging its breadth explicitly in the body of the question (by noting that browsers may have different behaviours). I don't think that's right or useful, and think the question should be reopened; an up-to-date answer would be more useful to me than the woolly and subjective takes on DNS round robin that Server Fault does allow! | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 12:38 | comment | added | Mark Amery | And yet the number of major browsers and different possible behaviours is still finite, and giving an answer that carefully describes many different browser-specific behaviours (if they exist) is possible. And: all that information is relevant to Jeff's question at serverfault.com/q/101053/147556. If this question is too broad, then how can Jeff's question not be too broad when any answer to this question would be a relevant subpart of an answer to Jeff's? | |
| Apr 7, 2018 at 12:20 | history | answered | SvenMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |