Forum Discussion
NickRoy
Nimbostratus
NimbostratusGSLB pools, pros and cons to multiple.single pools?
Hi All
Just wondering if anyone has recommendations for GSLB pools. Which is better, a single pool with multiple servers, or multiple pools with single servers? Aside of pool specific monitoring, i can't think of any particular reasons why one would be better than the other?
We use ZoneRunner as well, so wide-ip's which match existing zones publish 'A' records for both pool members (public IP in each datacentre), is this normal? I'm under the impressions that DNS records for Wide-IPs are dynamically added/removed based on which pool member responds in a gslb pool. If 'global availability' is used, the first pool member's IP is seen in the matching Zone so long as it's available. this would change to the other pool member should in the event of failure. However is both aren't responsive, the both IPs are listed in BIND and you can get round-robin'd between the 2 IPs.
Would altering single/multiple pools resolve this?
The loadbalancing methods within a pool are many more than at the wide-IP level, but you may have specific requirements such as a DR pool or something.
Regarding the BIND, in your dns profile you specify which resolution methods you have - if you enable local bind then that will be used if the pool is down. So that won't be modified by using multiple or single pools, it depends solely on the dns profile. Decide what functionality you want and configure it as required.
PeteWhiteEmployee
The loadbalancing methods within a pool are many more than at the wide-IP level, but you may have specific requirements such as a DR pool or something.
Regarding the BIND, in your dns profile you specify which resolution methods you have - if you enable local bind then that will be used if the pool is down. So that won't be modified by using multiple or single pools, it depends solely on the dns profile. Decide what functionality you want and configure it as required.