\On 07/26/10 23:02, Barry Margolin wrote:
In articlemailman.100.1280077153.15649.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Laws, Peter C.pl...@ou.edu wrote:
Understood, but what I'm asking about is that the slave does not appear to be
losing contact with the first-listed master. In fact, from the logs, it
On 2010-07-23 22:52, Peter Laws wrote:
I would have expected that it would only ask the second-listed master if
the first didn't answer ... but I didn't write the code (and haven't
read it either!
And how would your slave ever pick up an update on second-listed
master that (for whatever
In article mailman.100.1280077153.15649.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Laws, Peter C. pl...@ou.edu wrote:
Understood, but what I'm asking about is that the slave does not appear to be
losing contact with the first-listed master. In fact, from the logs, it
appears to be flipping back and forth
From: bind-users-bounces+plaws=ou@lists.isc.org
[bind-users-bounces+plaws=ou@lists.isc.org] on behalf of Barry Margolin
[bar...@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 07:09
To: comp-protocols-dns-b...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Multiple masters expected behavior
Center / Network Operations Center / Web
University of Oklahoma Information Technology
pl...@ou.edu
From: Doug Barton [do...@dougbarton.us]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 19:23
To: Laws, Peter C.
Cc: bind-us...@isc.org
Subject: Re: Multiple masters expected
It makes it really hard to follow the thread.
Why not?
Please don't top post!
From: Laws, Peter C. pl...@ou.edu
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:56:26 +
Sender: bind-users-bounces+oberman=es@lists.isc.org
Well aware of that, but we have RedHat support so we're stuck with
that given
In article mailman.83.1279918361.15649.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Peter Laws pl...@ou.edu wrote:
On 07/22/10 19:57, Barry Margolin wrote:
In articlemailman.65.1279835965.15649.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Peter Lawspl...@ou.edu wrote:
I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple
On 07/22/10 19:57, Barry Margolin wrote:
In articlemailman.65.1279835965.15649.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Peter Lawspl...@ou.edu wrote:
I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple interfaces on most of
my slaves.
Is that expected behavior?
Yes. What if the first server
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Peter Laws wrote:
Except that the 2 masters are simply different interfaces on the same
master
Why do you think that would be helpful? Or are you just testing the
multi-master configuration in the hopes of adding actual diversity down
the road?
Doug
--
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Peter Laws wrote:
BIND 9.3.6-P1-RedHat-9.3.6-4.P1.el5_4.2
9.3.x has been EOL for a long time now, FYI.
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Computers are useless.
I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple interfaces on most of
my slaves.
I've got one of the slaves set up so that its masters {}; statement has two
of the master's interfaces in it. The preferred is first, with the
non-preferred second. I was contemplating using this on all
On 07/22/2010 10:59 PM, Peter Laws wrote:
I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple interfaces on most of
my slaves.
I've got one of the slaves set up so that its masters {}; statement has two
of the master's interfaces in it. The preferred is first, with the
non-preferred second.
In article mailman.65.1279835965.15649.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Peter Laws pl...@ou.edu wrote:
I have multiple interfaces on my master and multiple interfaces on most of
my slaves.
I've got one of the slaves set up so that its masters {}; statement has two
of the master's interfaces in
13 matches
Mail list logo
