I do not know why you really don't liket this mysql solution.
OK I am talking of a DNS for HA purposes for grid computing services for
exampe, so DNS
resolution must be always working at any cost.
The David solution can be OK, but I want to be sure not to have issues
with serial numbers on the two servers
and the mysql solution looks safer to me. You do not have to rsync
anything, just have mysql properly configured.
Riccardo
On 2/12/11 11:33 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 02/11/2011 01:51 PM, fddi wrote:
I understand you, but the advantage of having mysql backend is that
if one of the two servers dies, the other keeps running with up to
date informations, and can also be updated wit new informations. When
the other server comes up again it will automatically sync itself
using mysql replica mechanism. if I use file backend I have to
manually sync it, and how to keep tracks of modifications ?
for this I choose mysql backend
Two questions, how often do you anticipate one of the masters failing,
and how much data are you talking about? Generally the number of times
a server fails is going to be pretty small, if it's not, you've got
bigger problems.
If you're not talking about a huge amount of data here (and from what
you've described in previous posts, you're not) then you are fairly
dramatically over-architecting your solution here. Personally I think
David had a great idea in regards to using nsupdate to update both
masters at the same time. If you really think that one of them is
going to fail often enough to justify an automated solution than
scripting something that utilizes rsync shouldn't be too hard.
hth,
Doug
_______________________________________________
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
