I ended up using a mix.  I depend on dns for default name/ip resolution.  But I 
also maintain a hosts file that includes such things as all backup 
infrastructure ip/short/long name (for response speed, since determined 
locally) and those trouble clients needing explicit values (example:  I have a 
client with ports open on backup network, but not enterprise.   So I tell it 
that $bkup-ip is enterprise name).
So I only maintain it on a half dozen backup servers  where I have advanced 
privileges.  And on a busy master hitting dns for potentailly hundreds of dns 
validations at group start, the quick local hit for storage node/library ips 
can result in a performance increase.  I have to agree with Davina 
though....maintaining an extensive array of hosts files on clients could easily 
mushroom into a real maintenance horror in larger environments.  Not that I 
haven't used client side host files.  Again, as a break-fix...not as a default.

-----Original Message-----

From:  "Davina Treiber" <Davina.Treiber AT PEEVRO.CO DOT UK>
Subj:  Re: [Networker] ALL Clients suddenly started failing
Date:  Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:41
Size:  1K
To:  "NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU" <NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT 
EDU>

Goslin, Paul wrote:
> While I agree that maintaining a client host file is a PITA.... It's not that 
> much effort in my experience... And worth it in the long run. Unless you have 
> a very dynamic network with backup clients constantly being added / 
> removed....

If you believe that then you are perfectly at liberty to convert your
environment to use hosts files. However from my experience it will be a
nightmare. As an example consider the case when you decide to add a new
storage node and you have to add that address to the hosts file on 600
clients. I would not want to be the one tasked with that. OK perhaps
your environment is not that large, but that just illustrates the fact
that hosts files do not scale and DNS does.

>
> I feel it's more practical than naïve... I now have a weekend of failed 
> backups due to failed DNS lookups... I have no control over the DNS server... 
>  As long as the client is up and responding on the proper ports, Networker 
> should simply back it up.... What does it matter if the reverse lookup fails, 
> and how is that more significant than backing up your companies' data ???
>

The point of the reverse lookup is to verify to each machine that the
other machines are what they say they are. Not everyone agrees that this
is the best security method, but you have other options for this now anyway.

What else in your network stopped working when DNS went down? In most
organisations this would generate a call-out and someone would be fixing
it toute-suite.

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER