Load Balancing depending on a weight

Kurt Boyack kboyack at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 15:17:48 UTC 2005


On 9/10/05, Mark Frank <mark at mark-and-erika.com> wrote:
> * On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:13:51AM -0400 Barry Margolin wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure he was talking about client-side caches.  That's why he
> > said "caching resolvers", not "caching servers".  It doesn't matter wha=
t
> > the caching server does if the stub resolver performs its own caching.

It shouldn't matter much if the client caches it, because it will
already have a random address. I'll bet it would be pretty even across
all IP addresses. You might also be able to use NAT to get another
address pointing to the "better" web server.

> > And caching resolvers are not unusual -- I believe Windows has one
> > built-in (I don't know much about it, but there's a command like
> > "ipconfig /flushdns" that clears it), and so do many flavors of Unix
>                            ^
>                       supposedly
>=20
> But in my experience (W2K at least), not without a reboot.
>=20

I've never had a problem clearing the cache on W2K with it, and have
seen it done on many W2K machines. You can also run /displaydns to see
what is being cached. I just did it on my W2K machine and went from
14K to 711 bytes (localhost).



More information about the bind-users mailing list