Re: bind and multiple a records
On 23/4/06 07:24, "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On FreeBSD 6.0 with bind9, if I define a host to have multiple A > records, such that some IP addresses are listed more than once, for > example: > > . > . > . > www 600 IN A 192.168.1.1 > 600 IN A 192.168.1.2 > 600 IN A 192.168.1.1 > . > . > . > > > Will those addresses listed more than once show up more often as the > "answer" to name server requests (or more often as the first address > since it lists all addresses in response alternating the order)?? If it doesn't you could cheat thusly: www IN CNAME www1 IN CNAME www2 IN CNAME www3 www1IN A 192.168.1.1 www2IN A 192.168.1.1 www3IN A 192.168.1.2 It would still be a crappy solution though :) Ceri -- That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all. -- Moliere ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: bind and multiple a records
On Apr 23, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On FreeBSD 6.0 with bind9, if I define a host to have multiple A records, such that some IP addresses are listed more than once, for example: [ ... ] Will those addresses listed more than once show up more often as the "answer" to name server requests (or more often as the first address since it lists all addresses in response alternating the order)?? The last I'd heard, BIND implemented multiple-RR round-robin'ing but not relative weighting if a RR is specified several times. Too bad that they don't have the simplest implementation, which would be just to cycle through the entries as found in the declaration file. No explicit weighting would be necessary. Note that you're probably never going to achieve fine-grained control by using DNS load-balancing anyway, since client-side caching behavior is more significant than what your side does. Not needing fine grained control. Say I have 3:2 defined in the declaration. Anywhere from 1:1 to 2:1 at any moment in time would be ok... Just a general distribution. If you actually need load-balancing to do something, you're better off implementing it between a front-end DTS box (an Alteon or something like that if need be) and a bunch of back-end servers which actually implement meaningful load-balancing based on the workload of your back-end servers... If it were worth the money to do so I would agree... Chad -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED]" --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: bind and multiple a records
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On FreeBSD 6.0 with bind9, if I define a host to have multiple A records, such that some IP addresses are listed more than once, for example: [ ... ] Will those addresses listed more than once show up more often as the "answer" to name server requests (or more often as the first address since it lists all addresses in response alternating the order)?? The last I'd heard, BIND implemented multiple-RR round-robin'ing but not relative weighting if a RR is specified several times. Note that you're probably never going to achieve fine-grained control by using DNS load-balancing anyway, since client-side caching behavior is more significant than what your side does. If you actually need load-balancing to do something, you're better off implementing it between a front-end DTS box (an Alteon or something like that if need be) and a bunch of back-end servers which actually implement meaningful load-balancing based on the workload of your back-end servers... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
