> If your use case is so inconsequential as to not have any sort of negative impacts from outages, you don't need round robin dns. You just have one IP address and you're done. That is truly the simplest solution here.

An example of a time failover needs to be instant or failover doesn't matter at all is completely unrelated to whether or not there are times "somewhat decent" failover is needed. Not to mention times load balancing primary role may be to balance the load rather than boost redundancy.

As my personal example: waiting a seconds (or a couple minutes in the absolute worst case) to reconnect to a web terminal session in the occasional failover is not an impacting issue, waiting for someone to troubleshoot and diagnose a single server outage (a couple of minutes to many hours in the worst case) is an event worthy of handing out free vouchers to do the training another time. We've never had to do the latter due to remote training infrastructure failover issues in many years without a traditional load balancer (despite many outages) and it's allowed the training infrastructure to be extremely lightly staffed.

As the example from the blog: waiting seconds (or a couple minutes in the absolute worst case) for free map tiles to load in the occasional failover is probably preferable when weighed against things spending limited money on load balancers vs additional servers for all-round performance and scalability (tying back to the "balance the load" use case being the bigger value per dollar).

> If you are going as far as using a cloud dns system with "automatic pullout", then you might as well just use a cloud dns, like CF, that solves the round robin dns known issues for you.

Not sure what you mean here, CF's cloud dns is indeed one example of what I meant by a cloud dns system with "automatic pullout". It's referenced in the article, Zero Downtime Failover. Perhaps you meant to say "why not just use Cloudflare Load Balancing at that point" instead? The answer to that, if it were the question, is it's a paid addon ("Running load balancers does have a downside") as mentioned in the article. If that wasn't the intended question, then yes - you've got it, though I'm not sure how it's "might as well" rather than exactly what was said to use.

If I had to guess (and I could be very wrong) you come more from a background on the for profit high end datacenter hosted services side. Large scale, high performance, bleeding edge services for high dollar, 2n redundancy, high dollar equipment support contracts, the idea of not having cold spares on site for things with n+2 (or more) hot redundancy unthinkable given the target SLAs shouldn't allow waiting for equipment to show up until redundancy levels are back. That's fine and dandy. It's a fun type of environment and comes with certain assumptions... but trying to apply the common sense logic you'd use in those kinds of scenarios like "just assume you need full load balancers if you're going to make any uptime guarantee at all" doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else in all other scenarios. That's why engineering starts with asking more about what in the use case drives that decision rather than declaring a solution universally wrong out of the gate.