bind replication

[Steve Arntzen]

> Done carefully (which will be the case in all circumstances), doing zone
> transfers within views of many zones is no more "likely to get broken"
> than doing it with external mechanisms.
> 
> Been there, done that, have the tee-shirt and certainly don't want to
> use rsync.
> 
> AlanC
> 

I wanted to reply to this earlier.

I have several zones, five views and multiple slaves which pick up zone
data from specific views.  Add to that some dynamic zones.

Because the named.conf file became not only complex, but also large, I
ended up breaking the configuration into multiple files (options, views
and zone declarations) and using include statements to tie it all
together.  That made the configuration much easier to read and
understand.

Bind does everything at the local site itself without issue.  Any zone
data changes are made on the master and everything syncs up.  It just
works (like it's supposed to).

I use rsync ONLY to copy the configuration and zone data to a remote
site for disaster recovery every thirty minutes.  rsync is configured to
NOT copy the journal files.  As Bind will periodically write out the
journaled data, the zone data at the remote site is pretty fresh.

One downside to rsync is having to be aware of when the scheduled
synchronization occurs.  One must be careful when editing zone files or
changing configurations so that partial changes are not copied to the
remote systems which could cause problems.

Let Bind do it's thing.

My 2 cents,

Steve.

> _______________________________________________
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users