Search Again: Re: why not load balancing in OS X From: Men & Mice Support Date: Friday, August 20, 2004 Time: 9:17:51 am This has been asked (and answered) before, but here goes: Adding load balancing to BIND means creating our own variant of BIND. But since new versions of BIND are released relatively frequently, we'd have a lot of work to do to keep up. We polled list members about load balancing a while back, and a relatively small number of users were actually using it. DNS-based load balancing and fault tolerance relies on short TTL's, and the TTL is no longer a reliable thing. At least two major ISP's, following the letter of the RFC but not the spirit, have imposed a minimum TTL of more than one week on all cached records. That is, no matter what your TTL, they will cache your records for at least their minimum value, which seems to be a couple of weeks. A load balancing and fault tolerance solution working at the HTTP level exists. In fact, there are several. We can't recommend one, of course, since it's outside our expertise, but perhaps someone on the list can. ____________________________________________________________________ Chris Buxton Men & Mice Customer Support Specialist Making DNS Easy At 3:05 PM +0200 8/20/04, Guy Jones wrote: >We like load balancing, why do you not offer it in the OS X version? >Is it a technical issue or is it that you do not see the need? How >else do you recommend load balancing with the ability to remove a >machine that does not respond? >-- > > >Regards, >Guy Jones >_____________________________________________ >The Nova Group ><http://www.novaint.com > ><mailto:guy.jones@novaint.com>

Messages In This Thread: why not load balancing in OS X by Guy Jones on Aug 20, 2004 at 6:08:05 am Re: why not load balancing in OS X by Men & Mice Support on Aug 20, 2004 at 9:17:51 am Re: why not load balancing in OS X by Guy Jones on Aug 20, 2004 at 9:30:50 am Re: why not load balancing in OS X by admin@gippy.net on Aug 20, 2004 at 9:46:06 am