Hi, actually, I feel that DNS-based "load balancing" or "load distribution" when relying on RRset randomization is the poorest choice you can make - you have no control at all over distribution of the traffic, which means that a single system must be able to take the full load anyway, plus you end up with downtime of at least RRset TTL, or minimum cache TTL in some cases. Even with randomization in Unbound these problems do not get fixed - in my opinion you're fixing the wrong side of the problem. DNS by itself was never meant for loadbalancing, and trying to retrofit it in, you'll always come to a point where you realize that you should have used loadbalancers or some other redundancy/failover mechanism from the beginning.
Also, thousands of clients is not really a figure that shows how big or small the impact of the additional CPU required might be on a properly loaded setup - how many queries per second are you doing with your setup? We're currently sitting at approx 30,000 queries per second. Wouter, if you bring this randomization into mainline, please make it configurable, as in my opinion this is only useful for very few specialized environments, most notably probably resource-constrained institutions that are forced to use dns-based loadbalancing. Kind regards, Felix -- Felix Schüren Head of Network ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Host Europe GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de Welserstraße 14 - 51149 Köln - Germany Telefon: 0800 467 8387 - Fax: +49 180 5 66 3233 (*) HRB 28495 Amtsgericht Köln - USt-IdNr.: DE187370678 Geschäftsführer: Patrick Pulvermüller, Thomas Vollrath (*) 0,14 EUR/Min. aus dem dt. Festnetz; maximal 0,42 EUR/Min. aus den dt. Mobilfunknetzen _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
