I think it's best they have their own MX record.

The only reason I can think of is if one of the A records in a shared
MX record is experiencing issues, the second A record on that MX
record may not be tried for a while due to caching.

Regards
Paul

On 1 March 2015 at 22:01, Leon Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m planning to move my mail setup from one primary and one backup MX to
> two MXes with equal priority, and one backup MX.
>
> To achieve that, I have of course two options available for setting up
> my MX records:
>
> (1) example.com.         MX      23 primary.example.com.
>     example.com.         MX      42 backup.example.com.
>     backup.example.com.  A/AAAA  <address of server a>
>     backup.example.com.  A/AAAA  <address of server b>
>
> (2) example.com.         MX  23 primary-a.example.com.
>     example.com.         MX  23 primary-b.example.com.
>     example.com.         MX  42 backup.example.com.
>
> Now I know both of these setups are possible and should lead to load
> distribution between servers a and b, and fallback to the other server if
> one is unavailable, or to the backup server if both primary servers are
> unavailable.
>
> I wonder, however, if either option has particular advantages from an
> operational perspective, or if they are indeed equal.
>
> I’ve tried both options in a test environment and played around with
> various scenarios (one, two servers being unreachable, etc).  With both
> options I’ve seen good fallback and load distribution behaviour from
> incoming mail servers after having attracted some test traffic.
>
> Naturally though, my test traffic is a bit limited, so I’d be interested
> to hear if you guys have any operational experience that would recommend
> either of the options over the other, e.g. if there are broken
> implementations out there that will work better with one of the options,
> or anything else.  Note that although load distribution is nice, I’m
> mostly looking for high availability, so I’m most interested to know if
> fallback mechanisms work as nice in reality as they do in my test setup.
>
> Regards,
>
>     -- Leon.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mailop mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>

_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to