Binand Raj S. wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:43:44AM +0530, Arvind wrote:I know the difference between load balancing and failover. I certianly don't want lectures from you. If I need it I know better people to do that. Please don't waste my time like this. If you need to understand the basics of DNS then mail me and not to the list and when I'm free and I'll get back to you. And I don't want any useless flames either. I am not going to respond to this thread any more since I consider this as useless wastage of valuable time.
actually Binand, this dude is _probably_ getting concerned with the mxWell it can be done, but not in the way MX records work. And its not
entries where this works well but sadly cannot be applied to normal A type
records.
a solution to the OP's problem either (who wants a backup webserver to
take over in case the main webserver goes down).
DNS round robin is meant for load balancing (that too, its a bit too
primitive, IMO). What the OP needs is failover. There is a difference,
which this dude seems not to have grasped (eg: Many MX records with the
same priority is load balancing, many MX records with different priorities
is failover). Cisco Local Director provides both functionalities, IIRC
(ie, the failed server is removed from the load balance pool, and two
Local Directors can work in a stateful failover mode). I have heard of
LinuxDirector too recently.
Keepalived (which I suggested in another post in this thread) provides
failover for me. YMMV.
Binand
Sanjay
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
linux-india-help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
