Detecting Failures
phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu
Thu Oct 2 19:00:24 UTC 2003
Martin McCormick <martin at dc.cis.okstate.edu> wrote:
> In the old days, a catastrophic failure of the master dns was
> not nearly as devistating as it might be today in an Active Directory
> environment. Microsoft has a multimastering scheme where by several
> platforms all behave as the master dns so that if one fails, nobody
> notices outside of the system administrators, maybe.
Hmm.. In the "old days" filure is the master is not noticable since
it's hidden and all slaves are rsplicas and redundant. I don't see
what AD adds except more failure modes ( like the never ending
problem of conflicting updates on multiple servers)
> It is pretty easy to turn a slave in to a master as long as it
> had all the zones to begin with. That along with a second Ethernet
> interface means that one just brings it up on the master's address
> with the correct configuration file and things are able to be updated
> again.
Sounds complicated to me.
> This brings me to the question. What do large operations with
> extremely high reliability factors do when they run bind?
Run bind. And what is your question ?
> Active Directory is growing fast in our group and we should
> have a plan of action to quickly failover a dead master.
Seems like your problem.
> The hard part to me seems to be how best to automate the
> detection of a true dns failure in such a way as not to accidentally
> trigger the switchover and possibly have two working systems sharing
> the same IP address.
Again, real reliability uses professional quality software not
toys.
> Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
> OSU Information Technology Division Network Operations Group
--
Peter Håkanson
IPSec Sverige ( At Gothenburg Riverside )
Sorry about my e-mail address, but i'm trying to keep spam out,
remove "icke-reklam" if you feel for mailing me. Thanx.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list