Thanks Kurt. I don't use tftp so that is not a concern. I was hoping for something a little easier like the two dnsmasq instances talking to each other and passing information. Oh well, c'est la vie. So this is not on the roadmap?
Thanks Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt H Maier [mailto:k...@sciops.net] > Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 1:34 PM > To: Donald Muller <donmulle...@outlook.com> > Cc: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq failover > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:36:35PM +0000, Donald Muller wrote: > > At the risk of offending Geert I have a question on failover. I found a > thread from 6 years ago discussing dnsmasq failover. There were a number > of suggestions made that required enhancements to dnsmasq none of which > seem to have been implemented. Is this a dead idea or something that is still > on the back (very back) burner? > > The simplest approach is to share your configs, usually with a shared > filesystem or drbd if you must, then configure CARP or VRRP, and set up > heartbeat to start up the secondary when the primary fails. This is far more > reliable than trying to juggle which tftp address to pass your pxe clients, > and > is generalizable to other services. > > khm _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
