We are looking at ways to load balance the static content on this server, to avoid the single server dependency.
I realize that round-robin DNS is, at best, a low end (some might even say ghetto) solution, but I can't help wondering -- is round robin DNS a "good enough" solution for basic load balancing of static content?
There is some discussion of this in the [dns] [load-balancing] tags, and I've read through some great posts on the topic.
I am aware of the common downsides of DNS load balancing through multiple round-robin A records:
- there's typically no heartbeats or failure detection with DNS records, so if a given server in the rotation goes down, its A record must manually be removed from the DNS entries
- the time to live (TTL) must necessarily be set quite low for this to work at all, since DNS entries are cached aggressively throughout the internet
- the client computers are responsible for seeing that there are multiple A records and picking the correct one
But, is round robin DNS good enough as a starter, better than nothing, "while we research and implement better alternatives" form of load balancing for our static content? Or is DNS round robin pretty much worthless under any circumstances?