On Monday 21 April 2008 10:54:09 am Elvedin Trnjanin wrote: > No, since it means that half of the requests will lead to the IP address > of the server that is down when that's the case. You don't want to do > this with DNS, the only thing it's good for is load distribution. > > Brian Wall wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Josh Paetzel <josh at tcbug.org > > <mailto:josh at tcbug.org>> wrote: > > > > The authoritative way to do this is via multicast DNS, whether > > that's viable > > for you or not depends on the WAN links. > > > > > > How does this compare to setting up two A records for a given > > hostname? I realize that isn't TRUE failover, but does it work well > > enough? > > > > -Brian > How it compares is that it actually works when WAN links go down. For an explanation as to why google for multicast dns. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel PGP: 8A48 EF36 5E9F 4EDA 5A8C 11B4 26F9 01F1 27AF AECB -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20080421/1b787714/attachment.pgp