Hello,
We used rsync to copy our master/primary data to the secondary servers.
Using some script magic, the primary is still the master (via named.conf)
since, as with most DBs, there can only be one source of truth.
However, the secondary servers were almost mirror copies of the primary. Only
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:18:33PM +0200,
Arnoud Tijssen atijs...@ram.nl wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
Since everything nowadays is dependant on DNS I would like to
cluster my primary server in case of a hardware failure or error.
Why? I really do not see your point. You have
Doesn't DDNS rely on a single SOA? If so, is there a best practice on
how to deal with this?
-Michael
On 4/8/2010 9:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 01:18:33PM +0200,
Arnoud Tijssenatijs...@ram.nl wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
Since everything
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:46:04AM -0500,
Michael Hare michael.h...@doit.wisc.edu wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Doesn't DDNS rely on a single SOA? If so, is there a best practice
on how to deal with this?
Are you sure the OP uses dynamic udpates? It is not obvious from his
On Apr 8, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:46:04AM -0500,
Michael Hare michael.h...@doit.wisc.edu wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Doesn't DDNS rely on a single SOA? If so, is there a best practice
on how to deal with this?
Are you sure the
5 matches
Mail list logo
