In message <eb2af3e3-5c8f-47fb-9d0a-fb82b8a42...@kumari.net>, Warren Kumari wri tes: > > On Jan 16, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Todd Snyder wrote: > > >>> do you propose he specify the ratios with BIND? > >>> = > > >>> One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than = > > >>> the other=8A > >>> = > > >>> www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.1 > >>> www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.2 > >>> www.example.com IN A 192.168.1.3 > >>> www.example.com IN A 192.168.2.1 > >>> = > > >>> Bind 192.168.1.[1-3] to server1 and 192.168.2.1 to server2. > > = > > >> Unless things have changed since I last checked this (many years ago), B= > IND ignores the duplicates. > > = > > > In this case, there are no dupes - I thought this at first, but noticed i= > t's 1.2 and 2.1 after my dyslexia turned off for a moment. = > > > = > > > The idea is novel, if ugly - bind multiple unique addresses and the BIND = > daemon won't know they're all for the same physical box. It'd work, but ug. > > Oh, yeah -- I'm the first to admit that it is ugly, but it *does* work -- I= > used this for a while at a previous company (before GSLB solutions existed= > ) and while it made me want to throw up every now and then, it did allow me= > to perform unequal load-sharing=85
If you want unequal load sharing design your protocol to use SRV records. If you are runnning your protocol on top of http/https complain to WC3 to get SRV support added. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
