From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Aug 3 23:24:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from main.piter.net (main.piter.net [195.201.22.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07BE215320 for ; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:24:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cyril@main.piter.net) Received: (from cyril@localhost) by main.piter.net (8.9.3/8.5.2/sply) id KAA19896; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:30:11 +0400 (MSD) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:30:11 +0400 (MSD) From: "Cyril A. Vechera" Message-Id: <199908040630.KAA19896@main.piter.net> To: mike@snafu.adept.org Subject: Re: Loadbalance webservers Cc: , , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG, Hovey@main.piter.net, Mitch@main.piter.net, Steve@main.piter.net, Vincent@main.piter.net Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:08:04 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mike Hoskins > > On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Gregory Sutter wrote: > > > > Anyone know a good place they can point me to for the how-tos of round > > > robin DNS? > > O'Reilly Publishing, "DNS and Bind", 3rd edition, p. 259. > > Also, note that this is eqivalent to 'static routing'... If a box goes > down, DNS won't care... it'll still shuffle the traffic across the downed > box's A record... with a large number of machines in a cluster, that may > not matter, but with 2, 3, 4... you can loose a lot of traffic. > > That's why hardware solutions (or other software solutions) are typically > implemented by companies requiring high resource availability. In most cases if the box is down it not makes a problem. Squid and most of web-clients are rolling over all given ip-addresses for host name and tries to connect until they got success. It seems, that there are no any reasons for other programms to not implement this scheme. So, IMO, plain DNS loadbalanicing for www-server is good enough. Sincerely your, Cyril A. Vechera email:cyril@piter.net --------- http://sply.piter.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message