On 18.03.2015 17:41, /dev/rob0 wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:48:40AM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote: >> I see why it may lead to problems. >> >> But in fact the configuration with only one writable file >> referenced several times is suported now. If I write: >> >> view "view1" { >> zone "aaa.exampe.org" { >> masters {IP;}; >> file "slave/aaa.exmaple.org"; >> }; >> }; >> >> view "view2" { >> zone "aaa.exampe.org" { >> in-view "view1"; >> }; >> }; >> >> then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? > > No. > >> Or am I missing something about "in-view" directive? > > Perhaps. The view2 reads zone data from view1, which in turn reads > data from the file (and its journal.) Notifies from the master are > directed to view1, which does the IXFR or AXFR and writes the And what if notify will arrive from host which is in view2? I just wonder, I don't think there is really a bug.
> journal. There is no shared access to a journal. So in fact they both read from the same writable file. Yes, technically only one write reference for the file is there, others are just reading, but the result is the same: one writable file is used for one zone in several views. Of course it is a much more simpler design for developers, than to allow concurrent writes. > >> And if I'm right, the only question is how to simplify the >> configuration so not to have two definitions in two files for >> every slave zone which is shared between views. > > I can think of two possible ways to do what you want, each using > multiple, separate files for each zone (one file/journal per view.) > I don't believe either way exists right now, but perhaps one of these > ideas would make a reasonable feature request. > > The first way would be if a view could have its own "directory" > option set. Then the relative paths in your example above would > point to different directories. The ARM is not explicit as to > whether or not this is possible, but some simple experimentation > would quickly determine the answer. I think ARM is quite explicit that directory is only allowed in 'options' clause. But to be sure I tried to put 'directory' into view and got an error unknown option 'directory' > The second way definitely does NOT exist, and that would be to have > some kind of variable in the named.conf syntax to refer to the name > of the current view. I thought of the same options, if you look at my message Matus UHLAR (and the second suggestion was in my message which started the thread). But I do not have needed skills to implement it myself. -- Konstantin Stefanov, Research Computing Center M.V Lomonosov Moscow State University _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users