Which is better, failover or load balanced DNS?

[Vertigo]

Which of the two options above is better for keeping maximum DNS uptime? I'm a bit iffy on the differences but as I understand it, failover DNS means that if one DNS server goes down, the next one takes over, and etc., and that load balanced DNS means that all DNS servers share the load equally (they take turns, I think). What's confusing me is that they sound like they do basically the same thing, but people tell me they're not the same.

So anyway... which one is really better between the two?

[userdan]

Load balancing, of course. Since load is shared between all servers equally, there's less load on any single server, hence the probability of failure would be a lot less. If well maintained and done properly — and barring any interference from Mr. Murphy — all the servers in the setup shouldn't even fail at all.

[bossbob]

I tend to agree with UserDan. I think load balancing shared between all equally would lessen the load. Thus eliminating failure.

[Dave M]

I always thought load balancing and failover were the same. You mean they aren't? Well, in that case, I think I'll have to go with load balancing. If load is shared equally, then that'd probably mean less stress on the individual dns servers.

[Dawnsday]

I didn't realize there was a difference between failover and load balancing. And now I'm really confused.

[kirkas]

You and me both, Dawnsday. @_@

I think part of the confusion is because people sometimes use "failover" when they talk about load balancing. But since the result is practically the same for end users, they don't really care. Still, it's good to finally know the real difference.

[Shane Phillips]

In respect with Fail-over, if one of the server / services are down, all are switched to another server or service. In this case, downtime is negligible. However, with Load-balancing servers, load on the server are managed accordingly. Basically, what it refers to Load distribution between the servers.

Regards,

Shane Phillips