Round-robin for high availability?

[cdevidal]

==== My real address is Chris (AT) deVidal (DOT) tv ====

Dave Henderson wrote:
> Wouldn't  high-availability mean that you get what your looking for 99% of the  time versus getting it less (5 seconds of time loss or not)?
>  In a  situation like the OP has described, the user would get their answer  100% of the time.  Shouldn't that count for high-availability?

What I think the second poster meant was that you'd get "click, delay,
click, delay" all along your surfing experience even if there is no
failure, due to round-robining.  In my second reply to him (which has
yet to appear) I realized his point but noticed that A.) in practice
it's not true.  Once a browser has a good address it continues to use
it.  When that address fails it tries the second.  It's only the first
visit to the site that 50% of the time is delayed 5 seconds and B.)
even if it were true that effect could be mitigated with an rsync or
Squid copy at the second site.


It would be helpful if rather than spending much time discussing it
that actual experiments be done on the behalf of the greater good.  I
have read lots of discussion on this (Google "round-robin" "high
availability,") and zero experimentation, which initially discouraged
me from just trying it myself.

I just want to know if I'm missing something in my tests.

CD

R U good enough?
TenThousandDollarOffer.com

==== My real address is Chris (AT) deVidal (DOT) tv ====