Linux HA may not be the best choice in your situation. High Availability using 2 sites

[tim at registriesltd.com.au (Tim Edwards)]

Les Mikesell wrote:
I'd already given up on Round Robin or any other kind
>>of DNS 'solution' before I posted, after reading this: 
>>http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/dns-round-robin-is-useless.html
> 
> 
> That page seems to be written with the premises that all clients
> are in the same location, served by the same dns cache which
> certainly won't be the case on the internet,

Isn't it the other way around - the article is explaining why Round 
Robin DNS won't be effective when the clients aren't all in the same 
location, ie. when they're spread around the net.

> and that browsers
> don't try anything but the first address in the DNS response
> which isn't true either

I can't see where it says that. All it says that there is no provision 
for ordering of records in DNS and therefore clients will most likely 
disregard any ordering of records you try to impose.

> and that statistically distributing
> the load among servers isn't useful.

I can't say where it says that either. The author suggests that people 
who want load balancing should use SRV records or a real load balancer 
(things like LVS I assume), instead of trying to do it through RR DNS. 
This is not saying load balancing isn't useful.

-- 
Tim Edwards