Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:55:30 -0600 (MDT) From: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@tombstone.sunrem.com> To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> Cc: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au>, sos@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, ipfilter@coombs.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Load-balancing box Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960812205331.12546A-100000@tombstone.sunrem.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960813103322.13759B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Michael Hancock wrote: > > webserverA is what DNS advertises. webservers 1 to 3 have mirrored > content. > > When the redirector box starts up all servers are given zero cost requests > are redirected on a least cost basis with round-robin on identical costs. > (This is just an example of a distribution policy) > > Servers that don't respond are assigned infinite cost and a > back-in-service algorithm can be used to get the rebooted server back in > the pool. Wouldn't it be simpler to hack the name daemon to do the load balancing, so when they lookup 'www.xxx.yyy' it picks a machine and directs them to the IP for 'wwwX.xxx.yyy'? From that point on you dont care what they are doing. I know VMS can cluster like this, without a problem (through MultiNet). Sorry if this has already been discussed, I'm jumping into the discussion rather late .. -Brandon Gillespie-
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960812205331.12546A-100000>