subject:"load balance of DNS"

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-16 Thread Mark Andrews


In message , 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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-16 Thread Warren Kumari


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 otherŠ
>>> 
>>> 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), BIND 
>> ignores the duplicates.
> 
> In this case, there are no dupes - I thought this at first, but noticed it'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…

W 



> 
> t.
> 
> -
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public 
> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your 
> system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this 
> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
> ___
> 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
> 


---
Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly .
-- Radia Perlman.

Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net



___
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

RE: load balance of DNS

2012-01-16 Thread Todd Snyder

>> do you propose he specify the ratios with BIND?
>> 
>> One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than 
>> the otherŠ
>>
>> 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), BIND 
>ignores the duplicates.

In this case, there are no dupes - I thought this at first, but noticed it'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.

t.

-
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public 
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your 
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission 
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-16 Thread Dave Sparro

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Barry Margolin  wrote:

>> One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than the
>> otherŠ
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> server1 should now get kinda roughly 3 time as much traffic as server2
>> (depending on number of clients, phase of moon, flavor of ice-cream, etc).
>> Horrendously icky, waste of space, etc butŠ
>
> Unless things have changed since I last checked this (many years ago),
> BIND ignores the duplicates.
>

Those aren't duplicates.  It's a single server with multiple IP
addresses in the desired ratio.

-- 
Dave
___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-16 Thread Sten Carlsen



On 16/01/12 20:52, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
>  Warren Kumari  wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> Simon  wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 sure it is.

 Here a more detailed version:
 http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html
>>> RR usually results in roughly equal load balancing.  He said he wants 
>>> one of the addresses to get MORE traffic than the other.  How do you 
>>> propose he specify the ratios with BIND?
>> One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than the 
>> otherS(
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> server1 should now get kinda roughly 3 time as much traffic as server2 
>> (depending on number of clients, phase of moon, flavor of ice-cream, etc).
>> Horrendously icky, waste of space, etc butS(
> Unless things have changed since I last checked this (many years ago), 
> BIND ignores the duplicates.
I see no duplicates here, only one server with 3 IPs. This should work
but is a big mess in many ways.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

   "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" 

___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-16 Thread Barry Margolin

In article ,
 Warren Kumari  wrote:

> On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> > In article ,
> > Simon  wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> sure it is.
> >> 
> >> Here a more detailed version:
> >> http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html
> > 
> > RR usually results in roughly equal load balancing.  He said he wants 
> > one of the addresses to get MORE traffic than the other.  How do you 
> > propose he specify the ratios with BIND?
> 
> One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than the 
> other
> 
> 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.
> 
> server1 should now get kinda roughly 3 time as much traffic as server2 
> (depending on number of clients, phase of moon, flavor of ice-cream, etc).
> Horrendously icky, waste of space, etc but

Unless things have changed since I last checked this (many years ago), 
BIND ignores the duplicates.

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-16 Thread Warren Kumari


On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article ,
> Simon  wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> sure it is.
>> 
>> Here a more detailed version:
>> http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html
> 
> RR usually results in roughly equal load balancing.  He said he wants 
> one of the addresses to get MORE traffic than the other.  How do you 
> propose he specify the ratios with BIND?

One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than the other…

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.

server1 should now get kinda roughly 3 time as much traffic as server2 
(depending on number of clients, phase of moon, flavor of ice-cream, etc).
Horrendously icky, waste of space, etc but…

W



> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>> 
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:40:31 +0800, MyDots.net wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for
>>> load balancing a special record?
>>> for example,
>>> 
>>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
>>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2
>>> 
>>> I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.
>>> I know other 4 or 7 layer software (like LVS and Nginx) can do that,
>>> but also want to know if BIND supports this.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
> ___
> 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
> 


---
Don't be impressed with unintelligible stuff said condescendingly .
-- Radia Perlman.

Warren Kumari
war...@kumari.net



___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-13 Thread Barry Margolin

In article ,
 Simon  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> sure it is.
> 
> Here a more detailed version:
> http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html

RR usually results in roughly equal load balancing.  He said he wants 
one of the addresses to get MORE traffic than the other.  How do you 
propose he specify the ratios with BIND?

> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:40:31 +0800, MyDots.net wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for
> > load balancing a special record?
> > for example,
> >
> > www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
> > www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2
> >
> > I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.
> > I know other 4 or 7 layer software (like LVS and Nginx) can do that,
> > but also want to know if BIND supports this.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > ___
> > 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

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-13 Thread Barry Margolin

In article ,
 Matus UHLAR - fantomas  wrote:

> On 13.01.12 22:40, MyDots.net wrote:
> >Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for 
> >load balancing a special record?
> >for example,
> >
> >www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
> >www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2
> 
> kind of.
> 
> >I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.
> 
> With DNS you can only hint clients to send their requests by sorting 
> provided RRs in particular order. You can not be sure that they will 
> preserve the order and that they will send their requests to different 
> servers. In fact, most of clients take first server and will 
> communicate with it.

Since caching servers usually do their own sorting or round robin, 
anything you do on the authoritative servers is not likely to be 
preserved.

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-13 Thread David Klein

With stock DNS, no; all you can do is recommend by ordering the responses.
But there are solutions. There are load-balancing DNS servers (they have a
pool of responses, and hand out an answer of that pool, based on rules, and
can even remove an answer from the pool if a watchdog/monitor fails). F5
GTM and Cisco GSS are examples, but you need to talk with the vendor or a
VAR to help you to understand some of the nuances and complexities of doing
this way.




On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:

> On 13.01.12 22:40, MyDots.net wrote:
>
>> Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for load
>> balancing a special record?
>> for example,
>>
>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2
>>
>
> kind of.
>
>
>  I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.
>>
>
> With DNS you can only hint clients to send their requests by sorting
> provided RRs in particular order. You can not be sure that they will
> preserve the order and that they will send their requests to different
> servers. In fact, most of clients take first server and will communicate
> with it.
>
>
>  I know other 4 or 7 layer software (like LVS and Nginx) can do that, but
>> also want to know if BIND supports this.
>>
>
> better get such solution then...
>
> --
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
> Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
> Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
> Remember half the people you know are below average.
> __**_
>
> Please visit 
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/**listinfo/bind-usersto
>  unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users@lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/**listinfo/bind-users
>



-- 

david t. klein

Cisco Certified Network Associate (CSCO11281885)
Linux Professional Institute Certification (LPI000165615)
Redhat Certified Engineer (805009745938860)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-13 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas


On 13.01.12 22:40, MyDots.net wrote:
Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for 
load balancing a special record?

for example,

www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2


kind of.


I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.


With DNS you can only hint clients to send their requests by sorting 
provided RRs in particular order. You can not be sure that they will 
preserve the order and that they will send their requests to different 
servers. In fact, most of clients take first server and will 
communicate with it.


I know other 4 or 7 layer software (like LVS and Nginx) can do that, 
but also want to know if BIND supports this.


better get such solution then...

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Remember half the people you know are below average. 
___

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

Re: load balance of DNS

2012-01-13 Thread Simon


Hi,

sure it is.

Here a more detailed version:
http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html

Regards,
Simon

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:40:31 +0800, MyDots.net wrote:

Hi,

Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for
load balancing a special record?
for example,

www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2

I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.
I know other 4 or 7 layer software (like LVS and Nginx) can do that,
but also want to know if BIND supports this.

Thanks.
___
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


___
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

load balance of DNS

2012-01-13 Thread MyDots.net


Hi,

Is there a good way of running the current BIND (9.7 and later) for 
load balancing a special record?

for example,

www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2

I want the first one to get more web traffic than the second one.
I know other 4 or 7 layer software (like LVS and Nginx) can do that, 
but also want to know if BIND supports this.


Thanks.
___
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

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

RE: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

Re: load balance of DNS

load balance of DNS

13 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information