mike at zerowait.com
Fri Nov 26 18:05:10 UTC 1999
If you are thinking of commercially available equipment you might want to join the
discussion groups at http://www.loadbalancing.net and ask what are the best for
your particular requirements. Typically I would suggest that you steer away from
the PC based products and look into the switch based and router based products.
I hope this helps,
Michael Linett - President
Mike at zerowait.com * http://www.zerowait.com
PH 302.266.9408 FX 302.738.4302
http://www.loadbalancing.net - The Source for information on Load Balancing
http://www.nas-san.com - Information on Network Attached Storage and Storage Area
Mark_Andrews at iengines.com wrote:
> The long term solution to this is to write a draft stating
> how to use SVR records with FTP. SVR records are ideally
> suited for this situation.
> The trick below will work though it does consume address
> You can also create 11 CNAME records for ftp.example
> ftp.example CNAME ftp1.example
> ftp.example CNAME ftp2.example
> ftp.example CNAME ftp10.example
> ftp.example CNAME ftp11.example
> ftp1.example A <main_server>
> ftp10.example A <main_server>
> ftp11.example A <backup_server>
> If you do this make sure you have an up to date (8.2.2-P5)
> version of BIND for all the servers for this zone. We
> introduced a bug in the handling of multiple-cnames around
> 8.1.2/8.2. You also need to turn on multiple-cnames in
> the options block for all thse servers. This solution has
> the drawback that if the ftp client is willing to try all
> the addresses it is given you won't get automaitic failover.
> You can alleviate this bu making ftp1.example have both
> address ftp1 to ftp10 having main_server first and
> backup_server second, ftp11 having the reverse order and
> setting rrset-order for these records (not ftp.example) to
> fixed on all the servers.
> There are also commerial products from the will do this
> sort of thing. CISCO makes a product as do others. Go
> to deja.com and perform an advanced search in the forum
> comp.protocols.dns.bind where bind-users is gatewayed to
> find other vendors.
> > As bind ignores duplicate records
> > eg
> > dreamer IN A x.x.x.x
> > dreamer IN A x.x.x.x
> > and thus it is impossible to load balance based on the specs of individual ma
> > chines, would
> > proportionally multi homing a machine and thus having many records with diffe
> > ring ip
> > addresses to balance it out?
> > eg
> > machine one, daul athlon 800 2gig ram (main ftp server)
> > assign this machine ten ips
> > machine two, p200 128 ram (extra server)
> > assign this one ip
> > then list A records for all ten ips and thus make machine one ten times more
> > frequently
> > accessed than machine two.
> > Is this a viable trick or is there a better way to implement load balancing?
> > cheers
> > --
> > Marek Narkiewicz, Webmaster Intercreations
> > Reply to <-marek @ intercreations . com->
> > "Ticking away, the moments that make up a dull day"
> > Pink Floyd
> > Time
> Mark Andrews, Internet Engines Inc. / Internet Software Consortium
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at iengines.com
More information about the bind-users