[icecast] Legality Issue & Relaying
hostmaster at xenterra.net
Fri May 6 09:01:12 PDT 2005
If you are using BIND, your supposition is correct about load balancing.
>From the BIND manual:
3.2. Load Balancing
A primitive form of load balancing can be achieved in the DNS by using
multiple A records for one name.
For example, if you have three WWW servers with network addresses of
10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2 and 10.0.0.3, a set of records such as the following
means that clients will connect to each machine one third of the time:
Name TTL CLASS TYPE Resource Record (RR) Data
www 600 IN A 10.0.0.1
600 IN A 10.0.0.2
600 IN A 10.0.0.3
When a resolver queries for these records, BIND will rotate them and
respond to the query with the records in a different order. In the example
above, clients will randomly receive records in the order 1, 2, 3; 2, 3,
1; and 3, 1, 2. Most clients will use the first record returned and
discard the rest.
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Michael Hobbs wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm planning to get a stream running in the next month or two, and
> will be using ices and icecast.
> Unless you get a business connection in the UK standard upload is
> generally 256Kbps regardless of your download rate (hence the
> Asynchronous bit in ADSL). I plan to use my brother's and parents
> internet connections at their respective houses as relays for the
> stream to enable more bandwidth for my listeners to enjoy a smoother
> stream. A question regarding this, can you use a single address (i.e
> as a link on a webpage) to balance the load between the various
> realys, or would you have to have separate addresses (similar to
> http/ftp mirrors)?
> I wonder if the former could be achieved with a "round-robin" set-up
> in the DNS server, whereby a single name resolves to different ip
> addresses sequentially, it would look something like this on the DNS
> server for example.com:
> mystation 0 IN A 192.168.0.1
> mystation 0 IN A 192.168.20.1
> mystation 0 IN A 22.214.171.124
> Above ^ first request made to mystation.example.com would resolve to
> 192.168.0.1, second to 192.168.20.1, third to 126.96.36.199, forth to
> 192.168.0.1 - In my mind I think this would work, has anyone tried it,
> has anyone got a simpler solution perhaps?
> Icecast mailing list
> Icecast at xiph.org
More information about the Icecast