![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.
jarledb: So if you are changing where host names point AND name servers at the same time, the right way to do it is:
1) Well in advance, lower TTL so you can make a quick switch of the host names.
2) Change the pointers for the hosts you want to update on the old DNS servers
3) Make sure new nameservers have the same zone files and setup, so you don't break anything when moving.
4) Move to new nameservers.
Now both the old and the new nameservers should be pointing at the same hosts, and everything should be hunky dorey.
Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.
jarledb:... DNS servers will cache negative results to avoid having to do the same queries over and over again. Sometimes for longer than the TTL of the root servers.
sorceror: ...As for new A records not being active as quickly, this would definitely be happening at step 5) - this is between you and your NS provider.
edit: As mentioned below, there could be negative caching going on. the TTL for these type of records is obtained from the SOA record for your domain (default is an hour)
sorceror: the point to take away is that DNS servers are quite dumb and have very little config. All of the control is done via records.
are you creating the records on the Snap connection? there's a chance that when the records are being created you are also doing a lookup (Chrome likes to do this for example, it does DNS lookups on every link on a page before you click them to speed up browsing time)
But to rule it out, I just created the records over 3G on my mobile, and am testing now via my Snap connection, with the same results... Worth mentioning though, that .com records also not updating as quick any more.
sorceror: very strange! another way to rule out negative caching would be to drop the default/minimum TTL setting on your SOA record but it doesn't sound like that is what's happening here.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |