Mihai RUSU wrote: > On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Negrisan Laurentiu wrote: > > >>Bind-ul 9.1.3 nu stie sa depisteze daca pica un host sa nu mai serveasca >>ip hostului care este down ? >>Am o setare de genul : >>a.mydomain.com. 20 IN A 172.25.10.70 >>a.mydomain.com. 20 IN A 172.25.10.71 >> >> > Pai stie vre-un bind ? :) > > In primul rand nu cred ca e treaba named-ului sa faca asa ceva. > > >>Sau trebuie sa pun un script ceva care deisteaza ca a cazut un ip (sau >>netsaint, webmin ...etc ) si restarteaza named-ul cu un alt fisier de >>configurare ... >> >> > > Da , un heartbeat system. Vezi www.linuxha.org. >
Sau alte chestii interesante gasite in mina de aur care este "Linux 2.4 Advanced Routing" (ca tot a adus dizzy vorba de asta; BTW - felicitari dizzy - prima oara am luat contact cu L24AR sub forma unui PDF shi nu am remarcat numele tau, probabil pentru ca nu aparea sau pentru ca de obicei nu ma uit la ultimele 5-10 minute dintr-un film ...alea cu genericele....). http://lartc.org/HOWTO//cvs/2.4routing/output/2.4routing-18.html Partea care te intereseaza este: #################################################### Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol implementation (site) This is purely for redundancy. Two machines with their own IP address and MAC Address together create a third IP Address and MAC Address, which is virtual. Originally intended purely for routers, which need constant MAC addresses, it also works for other servers. The beauty of this approach is the incredibly easy configuration. No kernel compiling or patching required, all userspace. Just run this on all machines participating in a service: # vrrpd -i eth0 -v 50 10.0.0.22 And you are in business! 10.0.0.22 is now carried by one of your servers, probably the first one to run the vrrp daemon. Now disconnect that computer from the network and very rapidly one of the other computers will assume the 10.0.0.22 address, as well as the MAC address. I tried this over here and had it up and running in 1 minute. For some strange reason it decided to drop my default gateway, but the -n flag prevented that. This is a 'live' failover: 64 bytes from 10.0.0.22: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.2 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.22: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.2 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.22: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=16.8 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.22: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=1.8 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.22: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=1.7 ms Not *one* ping packet was lost! Just after packet 4, I disconnected my P200 from the network, and my 486 took over, which you can see from the higher latency. ######################## Avantajele sunt evidente: high-availability pentru aceeshi adresa de IP...te-ai gandi la faptul schimbarea on-the-fly a DNS-ului poate fi "tricky bussiness" din motive de timp de propagare shi cache-uri? --- <a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe%20rlug";>unsubscribe</a> REGULI, arhive si alte informatii: http://www.lug.ro/mlist/
