On 2010/01/20, at 13:03, Dave Sparro wrote: >> We would like to make this better. >> Can anyone help with ideas on this? Are we missing something obvious? >> > > In that situation I'd consider using CVS on all of the servers to maintain > the DNS data. > Just make all of the servers masters, and forget about slaves.
Agreed .. that's definitely one solution. With your data already in a version control system, and that many name servers, you might benefit from replacing zone transfers with a configuration management tool (cfengine, bcfg2, etc.) which can take care of "noticing" that there's new data in the version control system, getting it onto the slaves, and then telling them to reload or reconfig as appropriate (depending on whether it's zone files or named.conf that changed). Another option if you want to stick with the master/slave approach is to tier your slaves. Reduce the masters to just two or three, and then assign 10 or so of the slaves to be intermediate masters. The intermediates slave from the real masters, and then every other server slaves from, at most, two or three of the intermediates each. If you group these appropriately, then you can get it down to a maximum of 10 or so slaves talking to any one upstream master, with a nice mesh to maintain redundancies. How you divide them up is up to you ... regionally works well though. Matt _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users