load balance of DNS

[Sten Carlsen]

On 16/01/12 20:52, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <mailman.884.1326738053.68562.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
>  Warren Kumari <warren at kumari.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>>> In article <mailman.826.1326465946.68562.bind-users at lists.isc.org>,
>>> Simon <simon at bk.it.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> sure it is.
>>>>
>>>> Here a more detailed version:
>>>> http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch9/rr.html
>>> RR usually results in roughly equal load balancing.  He said he wants 
>>> one of the addresses to get MORE traffic than the other.  How do you 
>>> propose he specify the ratios with BIND?
>> One (icky) solution is to hand out more addresses for one server than the 
>> otherS(
>>
>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.1
>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.2
>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.1.3
>> www.example.com  IN  A  192.168.2.1
>>
>> Bind 192.168.1.[1-3] to server1 and 192.168.2.1 to server2.
>>
>> server1 should now get kinda roughly 3 time as much traffic as server2 
>> (depending on number of clients, phase of moon, flavor of ice-cream, etc).
>> Horrendously icky, waste of space, etc butS(
> Unless things have changed since I last checked this (many years ago), 
> BIND ignores the duplicates.
I see no duplicates here, only one server with 3 IPs. This should work
but is a big mess in many ways.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20120116/9b195fba/attachment.html>