> For dnsmasq, I can see that active-passive is easy to do. Take your
> diagram above, and delete dnsmasq B. dnsmasq A keeps the tryant instance
> A up-to-date with the lease database and that gets replicated to tyrant
> B. If dnsmasq A fails, then dnsmasq B is started, intialises its lease
> database from the tyrant B and is there for clients as they fail to talk
> to dnsmasq A and start to broadcast. More important dnsmasq B can
> provide a DNS service with all the clients in it straight away.
Understood.
> This active-passive scheme shouldn't need any dnsmasq changes, and
> arranging to monitor server instances and start a new one when an
> existing one goes down is a solved problem: it's exactly what heartbeat
> does.
>
> Building a heartbeat harness to run dnsmasq active-passive and
> replicated tyrant (or another database) sure looks like a useful thing
> to try, IMHO.
I'll give that a bit of thought. (/dev/rob0's suggestion of using SQLite
is suddenly more appealing in this light, as it involves fewer moving
parts...)
-JP
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
