RE: DNS Based Load Balancers

["David Temkin" <dave () rightmedia com>]

> just as one can always find an example that supports one's 
> preconceptions, one can always find a single counterexample 
> that will support one's prejudices.  i'm sure that any 
> technology can be successfully demo'd or successfully 
> counter-demo'd.  this conversation started out as "what DNS 
> GSLB should i use?" and then "if DNS GSLB is such a bad idea 
> then what do you propose as an alternative?" and now it's 
> "every alternative has known failure modes that are as bad as 
> DNS GSLB's worst case."  does that mean we're done with the 
> informative and constructive part of this thread?

I don't think anyone disagrees with you there.  I just felt that any
comprehensive answer should go beyond "DNS GSLB is broken, don't use
it".  

        As someone who administers a rather large both appliance and
service provider based GSLB network, as well as someone who's
administered triangulation and BGP-based methods in the past, I can
honestly say that thus far the DNS implementation has been far less
broken..  Does that mean that someone else feels differently?  I sure
hope so.

> > My main point here is that each solution has it's evils, and when 
> > faced with a choice, he needs to evaluate what method works 
> best for him.
> > Anyone could just as easily say that Triangulation and NAT 
> are a hack
> > just the same as GSLB DNS is a hack.   Akamai and UltraDNS 
> will actually
> > sell you GSLB without even buying localized hardware to do it - are 
> > these bad services, too?  Patrick said it best: Just in 
> case we like 
> > to decide things for ourselves.
>
> nobody ever got fired for buying akamai's or ultradns's DNS 
> GSLB services, that's for sure.


Very true, but does that mean they're a viable alternative for him?  Or
are they just as broken as hardware vendor GSLB?
The local load balancing piece can be served by any number of hardware
appliances or software products.


-Dave