On 2/13/2011 8:06 AM, fddi wrote:
I do not know why you really don't liket this mysql solution.

It isn't a matter of "not liking" it. Given that you have steadfastly refused to answer any of the questions from people who are trying to help you, my feeling is that you have decided that you want to use mysql no matter what, and you're not really interested in discussing A) What you're actually trying to accomplish, and B) What might be the best tool for doing that job.

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.

I'm very familiar with providing mission critical DNS.

The David solution can be OK, but I want to be sure not to have issues
with serial numbers on the two servers

If you nsupdate both servers at the same time, you won't.

and the mysql solution looks safer to me. You do not have to rsync
anything, just have mysql properly configured.

You're talking about rsync as if it's a huge problem, so my guess is that you're familiar with mysql, but not familiar with rsync. This reinforces my belief that you've settled on mysql as the solution no matter what.

But let's take an actual look at your scenario for a second. Which do you _think_ would be faster, rsyncing your data (very little of which is likely to have changed during the outage) or the db synchronizing, which requires it to connect to the other master, play all the transaction logs that it missed, and verify that it's once again in a consistent state? Having thought about it, what results do you get after you actually test it?


Good luck,

Doug

--

        Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
                        -- OK Go

        Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
        Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

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

Reply via email to