I have an alternative DNS server configured. I had expected the alternative to route traffic only when the primary is down. Instead, traffic seems to be roughly evenly spread across both the DNS server and alternative DNS server.
It seems odd that this would not be a failover, or that there would be no way to control where the traffic gets redirected. Ideally I’d like for the Alternative DNS server to act as a failover, but it seems it’s not what it’s designed for.
I guess I was just confused by the usage of the word ‘alternative’, it seemed to imply it would be used ‘instead of’ instead of as a second, equally balanced traffic. I guess that might just be me, and I couldn’t see any hovertext explaining it’s behaviour in the UI, so I was interested.
As to why I was looking for a failover in the first place, It’s not really a need. I have two DNS servers installed on Raspberry PIs, and I was just expecting to see traffic on one unless the other went down. I just presumed that if I unplugged or powered one down, requests for DNS would slow down as they repeatedly fail. I’ve not tested that, it’s just an assumption. If I card that much about it I guess I would put my own load balancer in between.
I think that would help, personally I would be less inclined to think of it as a failover then. Some hovertext or a note explaining the behavior would be useful too, if possible. That’s pretty much what I looked for before posting on the forums.