...if anyone has specific
thoughts on how to make this sort of thing easier in BIND -- even
just at
the level of boy, it irritates me that I can't make BIND do X --
such comments will fall on welcoming ears.
I agree that it would be nice if effort were made into making flipping
masters
On 5/9/2014 3:01 PM, John Wobus wrote:
...if anyone has specific
thoughts on how to make this sort of thing easier in BIND -- even
just at
the level of boy, it irritates me that I can't make BIND do X --
such comments will fall on welcoming ears.
I agree that it would be nice if effort were
On 2014-05-07 15:06, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote:
OTOH, the idea of multi-master is intriguing.the only down side I see, is
hat I have one really powerful server for my current master(Sun Fire
X4170)and my other servers are weak leftoversjust passed EOL last year.
And,
A few thoughts...
The DNS protocol is already pretty good at replicating zone data - see for
instance John Wingenbach's message in which he describes how their
deployment gradually converged on a fairly standard architecture :-)
I think multi-master makes most sense if the primary master uses
On 2014-05-07 15:06, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote:
OTOH, the idea of multi-master is intriguing.the only down side I see, is
hat I
have one really powerful server for my current master(Sun Fire
X4170)and my
other servers are weak leftoversjust passed EOL last year.
And,
I wouldn't say we migrated in that direction due to anything other then
lack of good options. What BIND is missing is the concept of an update
master.
Augment BIND with the following:
* Each master is aware of the other masters.
* One master is defined as an update master (rndc control?)
On 2014-05-08 07:13, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
On 2014-05-07 15:06, Lawrence K. Chen, P.Eng. wrote:
OTOH, the idea of multi-master is intriguing.the only down side
I see, is hat I
have one really powerful server for my current master(Sun Fire
X4170)and my
other servers are weak
I run a multi-master environment. We have 3 data centers which are
considered to be able to run even though the rest are down. Initially,
we ran our masters with the same exact configurations on each. One of
the data centers was administratively defined as being the 'update
master'. From
I run bind multi master on 5 different site.
my solution is bind-dlz with galeraDB backed.
we are very satisfied by this configuration and works flawlessy until now.
Rick
On 5/7/14 8:11 PM, John Wingenbach wrote:
I run a multi-master environment. We have 3 data centers which are
considered
On 05/06/14 13:39, Evan Hunt wrote:
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:20:11PM +, Baird, Josh wrote:
Hi,
For those of you who operate at multiple sites or datacenters, are you
doing any HA for your BIND masters? Ideally, we would have a master in
each datacenter; maybe not an active one, but
Well, we use two masters in different locations, w/o DLZ. Files for
signed zones are being generated from databases and uploaded to
servers. What we need here - is propagating of DDNS plus periodical
synchronizing of zones, journals etc.
Regarding zone templates - I'm using it with NSD4 and I'm
Hi,
For those of you who operate at multiple sites or datacenters, are you doing
any HA for your BIND masters? Ideally, we would have a master in each
datacenter; maybe not an active one, but one that is standing by in case your
primary master becomes unavailable.
Do you have multiple
Josh,
we use multiple masters across multiple hosts, with mysql as a backend for the
zone data.
Each DNS server is a master and has it’s own local mysql DB.
Each mysql database is then kept in ‘sync’ using mysql replication over a VPN
link from a single
(private) admin host.
The single admin
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:20:11PM +, Baird, Josh wrote:
Hi,
For those of you who operate at multiple sites or datacenters, are you
doing any HA for your BIND masters? Ideally, we would have a master in
each datacenter; maybe not an active one, but one that is standing by in
case your
On 06/05/2014 19:39, Evan Hunt wrote:
I don't want to influence the conversation here by saying too much about
the ideas we've had so far, but I wanted to say: if anyone has specific
thoughts on how to make this sort of thing easier in BIND -- even just at
the level of boy, it irritates me that
On 5/6/14, 3:41 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
I could expand on the idea if people don't think it's too insane ;o) I
suspect it has all kinds of caveats I haven't thought of, however.
The concept of a meta-zone containing config data is something that I
discussed with a number of ISC staff over the
16 matches
Mail list logo
