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
