Redundant servers ???
Jim Reid
jim at mpn.cp.philips.com
Sat Aug 21 07:45:24 UTC 1999
>>>>> "Barry" == Barry Margolin <barmar at bbnplanet.com> writes:
Barry> In article <199908202006.QAA07011 at www.fsproduce.com>, Bennett Samowich <brs at fsproduce.com> wrote:
>> I read somewhere, I can't remember where, about creating two
>> primary DNS server and using rsync to keep them identical.
>>
>> Is this more reliable than having one server pass the
>> information {master|slave} to the other.
Barry> I don't see why this would be more reliable. It's just a
Barry> different way to keep the servers in sync.
Barry> It means you'll have to do extra work to get it going. DNS
Barry> already provides automatic synchronization via zone
Barry> transfers, periodic refreshes and the NOTIFY protocol, and
Barry> you'll need to replicate that functionality in your rsync
Barry> mechanism.
In fact it's worse than that. You have to go through all sorts of
contortions to try to switch *off* those mechanisms if you're using
something like rsync to keep the server contents sychronised. For
instance primary server #1 won't be too happy at getting a NOTIFY from
primary server #2 when it loads a new copy of the zone.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list