> What would happen if I'd configure X = 2 and the following happens: > > 1. Initially only 127.0.0.1 is returned. >
1 UP server available in the backend > 2. 127.0.0.2 is added and healthy. > 2 servers UP available in the backend > 3. 127.0.0.1 is removed from DNS and thus marked DOWN. > then only 1 server in the backend. I think we'll have a specific flag to report a failure due to DNS > 4. 127.0.0.3 is added (with 127.0.0.2 still being healthy and 127.0.0.1 > still being DOWN / missing from the DNS response) > > then 2 servers in the backend. Worst case, set X to 10 and you're good ;) > You said that once an IP address disappears the backend will be marked as > DOWN and that there is an upper limit. Not the backend, the corresponding server will be DOWN because of DNS (a specific flag should be added) > Are new IP addresses able to push removed IP addresses from the list or > will removed IP addresses be DOWN and taking up a slot until they reappear? > > Yes, this is the purpose. The algorithm will consider each DNS response atomically when updating the backend server list. > If new IPs are able to push away old IPs it sounds like it will meet my > requirements perfectly. I won't have control over the IP addresses assigned > in the DNS. > > We may be good then, which is nice :) Baptiste
