Mathieu Martin wrote: > > Mario Lopez wrote: > > >>Why not using 'roundrobin' ??? > >> > >>Install a couple of Web-Servers, give each Server an IP and > >>then setup for each Server a A-Record on your DNS-Server > >>pointing to the same hostname. > >> > >> > > > > > >The problem with round robin is that when one server fails > over it keeps sending them connections, I once saw a DNS > server implemented in Perl which worked in a round robin > fashion but making some kind of test to know if the server > was up and running correctly, I remeber it was called > something like "lb-named" > > > >Mario. > > > Why not use (keepalived?) with round robin dns then?. You get load > balancing, redundancy, and you don't need unnecessary additionnal > servers or kernel patches or whatever. Even with a lot of servers, it > should scale pretty well. Works too with servers in several > locations on > different internet pipes, as long as there are at least two > servers on > each pipe for redundancy. > You're wrong. round robin dns isn't HA, isn't load balancing, it's just request spreading. You can't control how many (DNS-)clients cache one of the RR IP's, therefore you won't get even load on your RR'ed servers. Plus you _have_ to use a tool like "lb-named" to keep your round robin dns from giving out the IP of a failed server.
It really comes down to using LVS+(keepalived|heartbeat|...) or pen. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
