active/active sites.

Hi Nik,

 

 

Ken Salchow from F5 discussed some of the purported downsides to DNS-based load balancing on vegan.net and here:

 

 

http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/ksalchow/archive/2009/06/03/shame-on-gslb-shame-on-me.aspx

 

 

With that said...

 

 

If you are happy with the client-to-each-datacenter connectivity/routing but want to take advantage of servers in both datacenters, you could configure a single pool for each VIP that contains the servers in both datacenters.

 

 

If you select a load balancing algorithm that takes into account the latency and prefers the lower latency servers, you could automatically select the local servers if they're available and the remote servers if no local ones are available.

 

 

Or you could manually configure this logic using priority group activation. You'd configure a pool with the local servers set with a higher priority than the remote servers. You could also specify a minimum number of active servers so that LTM would start using the lower priority pool members.

 

 

Does this sound closer to what you were thinking of? If not, can you clarify?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Aaron