Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Rodrigo Severo wrote:
b) try to detect the specific situation when this problem occurs with
simple non-obstrusive code and use a more convoluted strategy to choose
MXs only then;
That apparently implies saving host status information.
Storing host status only
Rodrigo Severo wrote:
Well, there is obviously a third and much more concrete option: the
one Sam effectively provided in Courier 20050626. My first impression
after a quick look at it is that this solution is uneffective but I
can't elaborate more on it now as I need more time to better
Rodrigo Severo wrote:
[...]
I'm wondering if it might be better to:
a) not to deal with it at all because there might be so few cases
Appealing as this option can be, to make an informed decision we still
need a sharp view of what we don't want to deal with. Your clear analysis
of the
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
A real DNS server returns records in random order. That's a fundamental
function of DNS: load balancing.
Is it random or round robin?
For multihoming, load balancing should imply that querying from net A
results in (at least averagely) different addresses than
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
A real DNS server returns records in random order. That's a fundamental
function of DNS: load balancing.
Is it random or round robin?
I've checked bind9's documentation, it's random-cyclic as they call it,
i.e., they just randomly
On 24 Jun 2005 at 8:30, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
As far as I can understand this would result in much less than
reasonable load balancing for MX records.
I still couldn't get a comment from Sam on this matter but I really
think that Courier's current strategy for MX choosing isn't very
Rodrigo Severo writes:
I still couldn't get a comment from Sam on this matter but I really
think that Courier's current strategy for MX choosing isn't very
reasonable as it relies on the randomness of the list provided by bind.
It's fast but rather uneffective.
I'm thinking about it.
Scott Morizot wrote:
On 24 Jun 2005 at 8:30, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
As far as I can understand this would result in much less than
reasonable load balancing for MX records.
I still couldn't get a comment from Sam on this matter but I really
think that Courier's current strategy for MX
On 24 Jun 2005 at 10:42, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
I bet you haven't followed the discussion from the begining. As a quick
resume, the load-balancing talk entered the discussion as a side-effect
of the information Sam provided that Courier relies on the random order
DNS answers are usually seem
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Rodrigo Severo writes:
Let's see this example:
10 brsmtp02.br.abnamro.com
10 brsmtp04.br.abnamro.com
15 naxpf001.abnamro.com
15 naxpf002.abnamro.com
15 naxpf003.abnamro.com
15 naxpf011.abnamro.com
15 naxpf012.abnamro.com
15 naxpf013.abnamro.com
30 plum03ap.abnamro.com
Rodrigo Severo wrote:
I've checked bind9's documentation, it's random-cyclic as they call it,
i.e., they just randomly choose the new first member of the list and
then recreate the list in the same order from this point.
As far as I can understand this would result in much less than
Rodrigo Severo wrote:
Being dependent on the way bind randomizes it's answers the distribution
won't have anything near a 50/50 distribution, I'm afraid.
Let me explain why. The way bind randomizes it's answers, only 10
different answers are possible:
...
What do you know... That /is/
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Rodrigo Severo wrote:
To use the example you provided later:
Let's see this example:
10 brsmtp02.br.abnamro.com
10 brsmtp04.br.abnamro.com
15 naxpf001.abnamro.com
15 naxpf002.abnamro.com
15 naxpf003.abnamro.com
15 naxpf011.abnamro.com
15 naxpf012.abnamro.com
15
On 24 Jun 2005 at 12:48, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
I agree completely. It isn't bind randomness strategy per si that
creates the distortion. Nor is Courier's MX choosing strategy either.
It's the *interaction* of bind randomness strategy and Courier MX
choosing strategy that produces the
Scott Morizot writes:
On 24 Jun 2005 at 12:48, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
I agree completely. It isn't bind randomness strategy per si that
creates the distortion. Nor is Courier's MX choosing strategy either.
It's the *interaction* of bind randomness strategy and Courier MX
choosing strategy
Scott Morizot wrote:
On 24 Jun 2005 at 12:48, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
I agree completely. It isn't bind randomness strategy per si that
creates the distortion. Nor is Courier's MX choosing strategy either.
It's the *interaction* of bind randomness strategy and Courier MX
choosing strategy
16 matches
Mail list logo
