MX record ordering
Brad Knowles
brad.knowles at Skynet.be
Fri Mar 30 18:21:31 UTC 2001
At 12:54 PM -0500 3/30/01, lawrence.a.kravets at us.arthurandersen.com wrote:
> We have recently upgrade to Bind 9.1.0 from Bind 4.9.3. Given the
> following, we have reason to believe that the order of response of the
> following has changed. We expect that it would split equally between server1
> and server2. Unfortunately we see more traffic on server1 than server2.
> Has something changed in Bind 9?
>
> mailhosts IN MX 10 server1.zone.com.
> mailhosts IN MX 10 server2.zone.com.
> mailhosts IN MX 20 server3.zone.com.
> mailhosts IN MX 30 server4.zone.com.
In theory, you are right. The load should be balanced across the
first two machines. In practice, there are still plenty of sites out
there for whom their local nameserver doesn't properly round-robin
records once they have been cached, so you will see a traffic
imbalance.
The only way around this problem is to put something like a layer
4 load-balancing switch in front of the machines which can all
perform the same function, and to get this kind of information out of
the DNS entirely.
Sorry, guy. Don't mean to burst your bubble, but this is just
one of the many little weirdnesses about the DNS and Internet e-mail.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>
/* efdtt.c Author: Charles M. Hannum <root at ihack.net> */
/* Represented as 1045 digit prime number by Phil Carmody */
/* Prime as DNS cname chain by Roy Arends and Walter Belgers */
/* */
/* Usage is: cat title-key scrambled.vob | efdtt >clear.vob */
/* where title-key = "153 2 8 105 225" or other similar 5-byte key */
dig decss.friet.org|perl -ne'if(/^x/){s/[x.]//g;print pack(H124,$_)}'
More information about the bind-users
mailing list