Search Again: Re: load balancing on os 9 From: Men & Mice Support Date: Monday, June 9, 2003 Time: 3:26:30 pm These values relate to fault tolerance. They are: - How often should QuickDNS Load Balancer connect to each web server to make sure it's up and running? (interval) - How long should QuickDNS Load Balancer wait for a successful connection before considering a web server to be down? (hostlife) The reason the two are different is, a web server might occasionally miss a single TCP connection, due to any of a variety of factors, without actually being unavailable generally. So the interval setting gives a "grace period". Good values are 30 and 90 (or 60) seconds, respectively. Note, however, that QuickDNS Load Balancer is not designed to generate lots of traffic - if you have lots of load balance records and, say, 4 servers, then you should set these values considerably higher. (In fact, in general, you should avoid having lots of load balance records. Use CNAME records to create aliases of a load balance record instead.) ____________________________________________________________________ Chris Buxton Men & Mice support@menandmice.com Making DNS Easy At 12:04 AM +0200 6/10/03, Guy Jones wrote: >Thanks for the info- I thought it was like a mail record. > >The last question, what is the Interval and hostlife fields and what >value should they have? > >at 9:27 PM +0200 on 6/9/03, Men & Mice Support wrote: >>At 1:06 PM +0200 6/9/03, Guy Jones wrote: >>>I want to have an off site backup server which is on a lower speed >>>connection. When using load balancing, if I set it to a higher >>>value than the other servers, which will all have the same value, >>>can I set it so high that it will only be addressed if the other >>>servers are unaccessible? >> >>You have the values wrong. Lower values get less traffic. >> >>>Does it matter what the value it as long as it is higher than the >>>other servers or is there an intelligence in the value? >> >>It's a simple ratio, providing for asymmetric load balancing. For >>example, suppose you have three servers at your main site + one >>offsite backup on a slow link. You would set them up like this: >> >>server 1 1000 >>server 2 1000 >>server 3 1000 >>server 4 1 >> >>In this case, the offsite backup would get something like 1/3001 of >>the traffic, while the other three split the other 3000/3001 evenly. >> >>A value of 0 will be treated as if the server were unavailable, so >>good values are between 1 and about 65000. >>____________________________________________________________________ >>Chris Buxton Men & Mice >>support@menandmice.com Making DNS Easy > > >-- > > >Regards, >Guy Jones >_____________________________________________ >The Nova Group >http://www.novaint.com >mailto:guy.jones@novaint.com

Messages In This Thread: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 4, 2003 at 1:46:21 pm Re: load balancing on os 9 by Men & Mice Support on Jun 4, 2003 at 1:50:05 pm Re: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 4, 2003 at 2:00:52 pm Re: load balancing on os 9 by Men & Mice Support on Jun 4, 2003 at 2:55:10 pm Re: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 4, 2003 at 3:05:40 pm Re: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 5, 2003 at 12:51:55 am Re: load balancing on os 9 by Men & Mice Support on Jun 6, 2003 at 12:55:13 am Re: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 6, 2003 at 2:52:45 am Re: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 6, 2003 at 4:49:14 am Re: load balancing on os 9 by Men & Mice Support on Jun 6, 2003 at 9:59:58 am Re: load balancing on os 9 by Men & Mice Support on Jun 6, 2003 at 10:02:43 am Re: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 9, 2003 at 4:09:52 am Re: load balancing on os 9 by Men & Mice Support on Jun 9, 2003 at 12:30:38 pm Re: load balancing on os 9 by Guy Jones on Jun 9, 2003 at 3:06:47 pm Re: load balancing on os 9 by Men & Mice Support on Jun 9, 2003 at 3:26:30 pm