- Newest
- Most votes
- Most comments
You're totally right, the document is misleading. Giving clients the opportunity to try different addresses is an advantage of any multi-value response, regardless of the routing logic used by Route 53 to select that answer.
The referenced downtime would occur if the client software isn't smart enough to failover between addresses, and for smarter clients there would still be a latency penalty because it takes time for the client to try different addresses. So Multivalue Answer is an additional improvement on top of the merits of having multiple addresses in the responses, by fixing the latency penalty or downtime once the resolver refreshes the answer.
I feel the Document is still correct. Assume we have 9 IP with status (5 healty and 3 Unhealty) as below as below
A - 1.2.3.1 (Healty)
A - 1.2.3.2 (Healty)
A - 1.2.3.3 (Unhealty)
A - 1.2.3.4 (Healty)
A - 1.2.3.5 (Unhealty)
A - 1.2.3.6 (Unhealty)
A - 1.2.3.7 (Healty)
A - 1.2.3.8 (Healty)
A - 1.2.3.9 (Healty)
If we choose simple routing policy then Client receives all the IPs, and Client will choose the random on. If it chooses unhealty IP then you expirience downtime else you can access the resource.
Whereas with Multi-value, Client receives only Healty IPs, so we will not expirience any downtime eventhough 3 IPs are unhealty.
Relevant content
- Accepted Answerasked 5 years ago
- asked 7 months ago
- asked 3 years ago
- Accepted Answerasked 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated a year ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated a year ago