[I've only just caught up on this issue, and I'm just going to add a minor anecdote.] On Sat, 08 Dec 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > Then it's a good thing that behaviour's documented in a standards-track > RFC so they know what to expect before doing the roll-out. And as far > as I can see, the actual impact in practice has turned out not to be > even serious enough to be able to be demonstrated... FWIW, we (as in the OFTC irc network) did notice quite a while back that the old ways of doing round robins no longer seemed to work very reliably: We had servers that ended up with twice or three times the number of users than other servers in the rotation, and explaining it all away with "well, the network of the less loaded server simply must suck, so clients cannot stay connected for long" didn't work out all that well. Now that I read this thread this Rule 9 thing probably explains it all, and assuming I'm right with that there was clear, demonstrable impact. In the end OFTC decided to move more intelligence into the nameservers and we now have geolocating, load balancing DNS*, courtesy of Luca. Peter * We always only return the two or three least-loaded of the servers that work from a set of 5 or 6 for a user's area**. As a special bonus servers that are found unreachable or don't currently have listening ports are automatically filtered from DNS answers. ** well, if you're in Europe or North America that is. Other places don't seem to have real internet or something to sponsors to pop up :).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature