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
system.)
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
