On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 10:09 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 08:52:36AM +1000, Julian De Marchi wrote: > > > Except that by default DNS will use a round-robin approach for multiple > > > A records. So, 50% of the requests will go one server and the other 50% > > > to the other server. Is that what you want? If not, you probably want > > > something like fake and/or heartbeat. > > > > Load balancing is not the issues, but the website given has put some *good* > > DNS-based round-robin "load balancing" is pretty useless for what you > want. it doesn't give you redundancy, if one server goes down then half > the requests will fail. True. But the client will figure out (in the case of websites) which IP to use. So the client experience "just works", perhaps after a bit of delay by hitting the down server first. > > ideas in my head. I think the heart beat will be the solution I will > > look into to, because either way I will have NS1, NS2, NS3 or NS4 to > > check for the availability of my WWW and MX servers. So the heartbeat > > will always be ticking away. > > i suggest you look into LVS anyway....by the time you've got heartbeat set up, > you've already done about two-thirds of the work needed to get load-balancing > working as well. with a little bit more work, you get load-balancing as well > as just failover. What if the load-balancer fails? :-) -Jim P. (don't over architect a simple solution ;-) )
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part