Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 9 August 2000 at 09:12:29 -0500
 > On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:08:28PM +0000,
 >   JuanE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > 
 > > I did not think of that. Good suggestion.
 > > 
 > > It seems like it would be a good compropmise if you can take your down
 > > server out of the rotation relatively quickly. If not, then you'll waste
 > > considerable time polling the busy server (and consequently having your
 > > connections rejected by tcpserver) while all other servers are breezing at
 > > 50% load.
 > That may be hard to do. A lot of places may have the list of IP addresses
 > cached and they typically expire over a time longer than a server will
 > be down.

Which is why, if using round-robin DNS instead of a local
load-balancing front-end, I'd want to keep a couple of spare
configured servers ready to configure with the IP of the down
machine.  (This might well be cheaper than the load-balancing
Photos: Minicon:
Bookworms: SF: 
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to