Re: Having multiple name servers - is it really necessary

2010-02-05 Thread John Wobus
Nameservers malfunction and networks in front of them malfunction. When this happens to the secondary, then you suffer what you are reporting. If you have only one nameserver, then such a malfunction can leave you dead in the water. I've run into the issue of updates to secondaries stopping

Re: Having multiple name servers - is it really necessary

2010-02-03 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 02.02.10 14:25, Rob Tanner wrote: > We have two registered name servers to answer internet queries. One is on > site and the other is a service of our ISP. The problem is that every once > in a while the secondary server doesn¹t successfully complete zone transfers Ha! a problem! - check why

Re: Having multiple name servers - is it really necessary

2010-02-02 Thread Kevin Darcy
On 2/2/2010 5:25 PM, Rob Tanner wrote: Hi, We have two registered name servers to answer internet queries. One is on site and the other is a service of our ISP. The problem is that every once in a while the secondary server doesn't successfully complete zone transfers and the data expires.

Re: Having multiple name servers - is it really necessary

2010-02-02 Thread Frank Cusack
On February 2, 2010 2:25:50 PM -0800 Rob Tanner wrote: cached (i.e. Is no data treated the same as bad data by upstream bind servers? I didn't entirely follow your ramble (paragraphs would have helped), but it's not BIND or other nameservers that would be the real problem, it's the application

Having multiple name servers - is it really necessary

2010-02-02 Thread Rob Tanner
Hi, We have two registered name servers to answer internet queries. One is on site and the other is a service of our ISP. The problem is that every once in a while the secondary server doesn¹t successfully complete zone transfers and the data expires. I¹m not sure what technically how the serve