On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:49, Peter Chubb wrote: > >>>>> "James" == James Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> 2. Servers must be physically located on different campuses - > >> because we connect tot he 'net through AARNET, we want them on > >> different RNO's. > >> > >> 3. There must be NO DISCERNABLE INTERRUPTION TO SERVICE when one > >> fails. Doing a "shift-reload" in the browser is NOT an option. It > >> must be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT. > > James> Wow. Well, point 3 makes it pretty hard. As I understand it, > James> that's an intentional design decision of tcp/ip -- if it were > James> easy to have another computer interrupt an existing tcp > James> connection and just take it over, then I'm sure it would be > > If you're only serving static content, that's not an issue: HTTP > version 1 uses a new tcp/ip connexion for each request anyway, > With round-robin DNS you may end up with different images on the same > page being served from different servers anyway.
Sure, that's a given. I thought the problem was that it had to happen without a reload - server crashing halfway through serving a particular html page. I considered 0 ttl dns as well, but it only works if you can afford reloads. James. > > Personally I'd go with round-robin DNS, and try to detect failure and > update the DNS fast. Some people's browsers would appear to hang > for a short while when attempting to access the next page, until the > DNS caught up (this implies using a short timeout on the name). > > > Peter C > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
