Re: split the load?

> It's not quite "pick one at random". You have to put them into a random
> order so that you can try them in turn until one works.

Sorry -- I probably started this loose language.
I meant "start at a random point in the cycle".
This allows sites to perform un-equal load balancing.
(or at least try to, as the DNS does not define the order ...)

> I think I'm convinced that "randomizing" is perhaps a better thing to do.

Whew.

> A *simple* scheme would not be expensive,

Good oh !

> but I know that I don't know enough about random numbers to want to get involved
> in trying to ensure true randomness.

*TRUE* randomness requires something like a radioactive source :-)
In you case, you can make do with a **VERY** crude pseudo random number, such
as the
time !!!!

We aren't talking high security here !!

> We are talking here about "randomizing" a small number of objects, often just two,
> probably never more than 10.

No -- please do not !
Start at a random point in the cycle ....

> Is something like "take the last m bits of the time of day modulo (n+1)"
> good enough for this purpose?

YES !