> Finally, the big question: why? What possible benefit do you get from
having a[...]

In my case there are two servers, A and B, A runs service 1, B runs
service 2. If either goes down I want the other to pick up and provide
it's counterpart's service _for_a_while_, until the first comes up
again. Both services suffer, but neither is down. I believe this is
a simplest case of "N+1" failover scheme.

Sincerely,
Dmitry Dvoinikov
http://www.targeted.org/

--- Original message follows ---
[...][...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]

On Tuesday 30 November 2004 17.44, Jordan Lederman wrote:[...]

I hate to ask this, but do you normally use howitzers against rats? This is 
pretty much what it sounds like: a huge solution for a small problem.

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not criticising your design - it makes 
perfect sense in the context of a dedicated fail-over system. I must ask 
myself though if this is really the job of a load-balancer and whether it is 
reasonable to incorporate this level of complexity into what is otherwise a 
pretty simple system.[...]