I'm not saying that it wouldn't work wonders for him. I was just stating that
he doesn't HAVE to have it to fix his problem. As for your MX record issue, I
would recommend setting both IPs to the same DNS name either with CNAMES or
straight A record. then there would only need to be one MX record
(mail.somesite.com) and when the server goes to resolve the IP address of
mail.somesite.com, it would get round robin response between the 2 separate IPs
you have. you could then put the individual mail servers as lower priority MX
records (set to the same level. so like:
Record FQDN Record Type Record Value
MX Pref mail.somesite.net CNAME
mailserver-1.somesite.commail.somesite.net CNAME
mailserver-2.somesite.com somesite.com MX
mail.somesite.com. 10somesite.com MX
mailserver-1.somesite.com 20somesite.com MX
mailserver-2.somesite.com 20
doing this, it would get a round robin MX record every time you queried it. If
it resolved to an IP that was down at the time, it would roll over to trying
the mail servers directly which it would end up hitting the remaining live
server.
-Sean
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:08:54 -0500To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Re: [pfSense Support] pfsense load balancing question
On Dec 5, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
um...WOW...thats severe overkill for what he needs. It also costs money. DNS
roundrobin is all he needs to use and thats free hopefully if he has a good
managed DNS service for his domain.
I disagree. We use DNS load balancing for incoming SMTP and a surprisingly
larger percentage of the mail goes to the "first" MX host in the DNS record.
If you want effective and even balancing of your incoming lines, you need
something more sophisticated that understands the availability, bandwidth, and
utilization of each route.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces
http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1&loc=us
