On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 09:17:02PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > 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. Do you know when this was? The only data for other OSes we've seen [0] seems to indicate that most of them don't actually use rule9. Unless we can assume Debian and Ubuntu users made up a significant proportion of OFTC users, and that the versions of Debian and Ubuntu in use at the time implemented rule9. [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2007/09/msg00049.html > In the end OFTC decided to move more intelligence into the nameservers > and we now have geolocating, load balancing DNS*, courtesy of Luca. Intelligent load-balancing from the DNS server makes rule9 fairly redundant of course. TBH, from the anecdotes I've heard, both here and in relation to mirrors.kernel.org, I have a nasty suspicion that there's some other behaviour being implemented by either Windows hosts or some common DNS proxies that re-orders DNS addresses in a non-rule9 manner, but with similar or worse resulting biasses. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature