On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Frank Cox <theatre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:55:18 +0100 > Chris G <cl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I couldn't get load balancing to work initially and asked for help > > from Draytek support, they advised that I needed to specify the > > nameservers in the router. What they suggested was to put two > > nameservers into the router, using your notation, nameserver 1.1.1.1 and > > nameserver 3.3.3.3. Then, in addition, I had to set another option > > that forced all traffic to 1.1.1.1 through WAN1 and all traffic to > > 3.3.3.3 through WAN2. It now works and I get load balancing between > > the two ADSL connections. > > After further experimenting, I too have discovered that this seems to work > best. In the "protocol and port binding" configuration screen, I directed UDP > and TCP port 53 to WAN1 for 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2, and WAN2 for 3.3.3.3 and > 4.4.4.4 > > Now this outfit rattles right along. Before I did the above step (just an hour > or so ago) when you went to a new web page you had to wait a second before it > started to load. Now, that momentary wait seems to be gone. Click - boom. > Here's your web page. I think I was getting some kind of dns timeouts before > if I sent a dns request to a nameserver from the wrong IP address. DNS > requests, too, seem to alternate. > > I logged into my webserver and watched the log file while I loaded my website > and found that things are indeed doing what they should. Every alternate > graphic (approximately) was downloaded by each IP address. graphic 1 by address > 1, graphic 2 by address 2, graphic 3 by address 1 again, and so on. > > Now I can see that things are definitely going faster than they were when I was > using just one Internet connection. In fact, it's damned impressive. > > > > I doubt it matters much what you put in /etc/resolv.conf after the > > first two nameservers, if it's using the third something is probably > > rather amiss anyway. > > You're probably right. My current resolv.conf seems to be doing the job -- at > least, it's running a damn sight faster than it ever has before. If this is > broken, then I'd like to break a few more. > > > > In fact I think the best way is probably to get the router to act as > > your local nameserver (mine can do that though I haven't actually > > tried to set it up this way yet). Then all PCs on the LAN just have > > the router's IP as their name server and you can choose what > > nameservers everyone uses by changing what the router uses. > > As far as I can tell, this router doesn't do that. At least, I haven't > discovered anything that suggests that it can, so far. There are a ton of > configuration screens here, though, so I could easily have missed it. > > I wonder if there would be any benefit to running a caching nameserver on this > computer. What's the current "best way" to get one of those running on Fedora > 8? That's another thing that I've never tried and perhaps it's worth giving > that a shot too while I'm at it. > > Ultimately, if any of you folks reading this want to give your Internet access > a real kick in the rear end, get two connections and a load balancing router. > You don't know what you're missing until you've tried this stunt out. > > You've already got me thinking but, I want it with wireless, though i am not sure until I try. I wouldn't need to isp's though because I am not even getting the max speed out of one ISP with a wireless connection. I can have to NIC's in a box, can I have two wireless cards with separate ip's pulling down the info so i could effectively double my wireless connection speed? It seems plausible on the surface anyway. Max -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
