|
Agreed. Completely.
I have not gotten involved in 3dns, but maybe that is a viable option. In my
humble opinion, bind is simple for a reason. Its not meant to be anything else.
-----------------
Sent from my NYPL BlackBerry Handheld.
----- Original Message -----
From: lvs-users-bounces
Sent: 10/13/2005 05:04 AM
To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list."
<lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Using DNS as a load-balancer [was RE: talk by Radware, a
commercial loadbalancer]
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 04:47:23AM -0400, Peter J Milanese wrote:
> Apologies for the mail layout here...
>
> Did the conversation go from load balancing dns to using dns to balance load?
> I
>
> If the former, if dns is designed properly (helpful if phones are dhcp), then
> dns would be inherently robust enough to handle it. I feel that adding hops
> to measure response/status would be a feature without much benefit.
>
> If the later, I agree that all of the above (ok, below) would need to be
> satisfied. Also, throw persistence out the window.
I could rabbit on about this for quite some time. But basically my
feeling is, if you want to distribute traffic between hosts
that have fast, reliable links, like a LAN, then LVS is a good option.
No, an excellent option.
If you want to distribute traffic between geographically separtated
hosts, then you don't want something like LVS that channles packaets
through a single location then to another. Something DNS based is
probably the way to go - though round robin is not nearly smart
enough for my liking.
In practice, if you do have geographically distributed sites,
then each site should probably be an LVS cluster. So essentially
you end up using two techniques to solve different parts of the
same problem.
I wrote quite a lot of this on supersparrow.org once upon a time,
its still there if people want to read/play/enhance/...
--
Horms
|
