Would there be any problems running 4 primaries and no secondaries?

[Kevin Darcy]

Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <38EE51CD.96107699 at daimlerchrysler.com>,
> Kevin Darcy  <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
> >Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> We now want to run 4 primary name servers and no secondaries all
load
> >> balanced off a switch and all 4 will be running off the same NetApp

> >> array (14 disks) ... No zone transfers, and no second zonefile
database
> >> issues to worry about. does anyone see any drawbacks to this kind
of a
> >> setup?
> >
> >Question: How would all 4 masters know to reload a zone when you
change it?
>
> I'm guessing a cron job that periodically checks the file timestamps,
or
> maybe an ssh script that sends "ndc reload" commands to all the
servers.
>
> >Also, would you have any Single Points of Failure in the switch
itself or in
> >any of the components in the network path from any potential client
to the
> >switch?
>
> Named only accesses the files when it's reloading or doing a zone
> transfer.  So a network problem between the name servers and the file
> server shouldn't have any effect on normal query responses.

I was thinking more in terms of how the DNS clients would get to any of
the 4
"masters" when they're all behind a dead switch/router/whatever.


- Kevin