Re: two bind9 masters
On 12.10.07 14:50, Dan MacNeil wrote:
> I think the difference between the two approaches is that we:
>
> 0) generate named.inc & zone files
> 1) scp named.conf & zone files
> 2) rndc reload the satellite servers
>
> and many other people have a script:
>
> 0) generate named.inc & zone files
> 1) scp/rsync named.conf
> 2) rndc reload the satellite servers
> 3) use the bind replication mechanism
You're wrong, the 3) is here done automatically, those scripts do not care
about this. You are trying to make assumption those scripts care about more
than yours, which is not true.
> I claim our approach is slightly simpler as we don't have to increment
> the serial# (perhaps done by SysCP) in the zone files and we have one
> less step. :->
it's a bit different: Your approach requires distributing all the zones (not
just the bind config) across all servers, while others just distribute the
config.
Also, the fact you don't increment serisl number makes your design much
harder to detect and fix errors, while DNS zone transfer mechanism takes
care about that automatically.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Reply to: