RE: [load balancing] Global Load Balancing with CSS

From: Massar, Marc (
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 11:49:23 EDT

  • Next message: Johnny Fribert Lauridsen: "Vedr.: RE: [load balancing] Global Load Balancing with CSS"

    Three possibilities as far as services that I know of...
    Digital Island

    I love InterNAP. Only used Akamai for content caching...but it was
    good. Never used Digital Island, but it sounded similar to Akamai's
    overlay load balancing concept.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dana Quinn []
    Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:11 AM
    Subject: Re: [load balancing] Global Load Balancing with CSS

    I implemented a partial global load balanced site a few years
    ago - late fall 2000 into 2001, and I think the limitations
    were fairly well understood then. We used the F5 solution, and I
    remember having detailed discussions with some of their
    tech people about DNS caching issues, including DNS caching
    problems in various versions of Internet Explorer.

    I said a 'partial' site because the global load balancers
    were mainly used to do a datacenter move -
    it allowed us to slowly shift traffic over a couple months.
    We saw various client systems that continued to cache our old
    DNS results one way or another for weeks, even months. :(

    Anyway, I agree that using some sort of BGP-based multi-homing
    is a better way to survive most common failures, but setting
    up and running BGP requires a strong committment in staff
    and equipment. The little content company I worked for at the
    time I worked in this realm wasn't too interested in going that

    Does anyone on list have experience with using network
    service providers that help to manage BGP-like multi-homing
    for web sites? I'm thinking of InterNAP, mainly, or other
    companies that provide similar services. I'd be interested
    in hearing how they work out for people.


    David Taylor wrote:
    >> May I ask how you moved away from the GSLB solution? We do it to
    >> get around points of failure like the network connection/ISP,
    >> and other single points of failure at one site.
    > We did indeed go for a failover situation and built our primary site
    > be as resilient as possible. It gave us quite a shock to discover the
    > limitations of GSLB at the time (probably 2 or 3 years ago now) as we
    > had largely implemented a hosting environment that relied on GSLB -
    > failover approach is nowhere near as elegant as an active / active
    > approach.
    > At the time, the DNS caching limitation of GSLB did not seem to be
    > widely recognised.
    > Our ultimate approach was to accept that in the event of total loss of

    > the primary site, our service desk would need to anticipate a high
    > volume of customer calls and would need to be able to manage customers

    > who required assistance with refreshing DNS caches. Not ideal, but for

    > the company an acceptable solution.
    > In hindsight. had we been aware of the GSLB issues, we may well have
    > designed our environment using our own physically seperate datacenters

    > and BGP with upstream ISPs. In my view, for ultimate availability, IP
    > addresses must be completely static to the customer, regardless of
    > goes on in the hosting network.
    > Regards
    > David
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Surf the net and talk on the phone with Xtra Jetstream IZZAT
    >,,5803,00.html !
    > ____________________
    > The Load Balancing Mailing List
    > Unsubscribe:
    > Archive:
    > LBDigest:
    > MRTG with SLB:
    > Hosted by:


    Dana Quinn, NextBus Information Systems (510) 420-3117

    ____________________ The Load Balancing Mailing List Unsubscribe: Archive: LBDigest: MRTG with SLB: Hosted by:

    ____________________ The Load Balancing Mailing List Unsubscribe: Archive: LBDigest: MRTG with SLB: Hosted by:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 11:58:14 EDT