On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:27:08PM +0100, Felix Schueren wrote: > Hi, > > actually, I feel that DNS-based "load balancing" or "load distribution" > when relying on RRset randomization is the poorest choice you can make - > you have no control at all over distribution of the traffic, which means > that a single system must be able to take the full load anyway, plus you > end up with downtime of at least RRset TTL, or minimum cache TTL in some > cases. Actually, in our setup, with BIND as resolver we saw close to uniform load on the two service servers that shared the round-robin record. With unbound, (still using BIND as name server in the shape of InfoBlox devices) we had a serious tendency towards loading the machine with the lowest IP address much harder; more like 80/20 than 50/50. Since this was the older machine, and we'd relied on round-robin for load sharing, things went pear shaped PDQ. We threw hardware on the problem, so are good for now, but round-robin really would set things straight. I'm quite happy that the userbase made the effort, and I'm equally delighted that it seems to be headed into a future unbound release. Open Source win. Wouter, any guesstimates on release schedule? -- Måns, will have something really good to report at morning coffee tomorrow.