On 18.03.2015 20:10, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:11:56PM +0300, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
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
On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
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;};
On 18.03.2015 13:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.03.15 12:05, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
I can't. It stopped working after upgrade to 9.10, but worked before
with 9.6. And the question is how to keep the config as simple as it was
before upgrade.
I mean, the in-view definitions...
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
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
On 18.03.2015 13:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
I missing something about in-view directive?
On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
maybe you could put all
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 {
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
I missing something about in-view directive?
On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
maybe you could put all those zone definitions into one file and include it
On 18.03.2015 13:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
I missing something about in-view directive?
On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
maybe you could put all
slave zone definition for two view (cache file name
problem)
On 18.03.2015 13:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.03.15 12:05, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
I can't. It stopped working after upgrade to 9.10, but worked
before with 9.6. And the question is how to keep the config as
simple
Of Konstantin Stefanov
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 6:31 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: Single slave zone definition for two view (cache file name problem)
On 18.03.2015 13:22, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.03.15 12:05, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
I can't. It stopped working
On 18 March 2015 at 13:30, Konstantin Stefanov cs...@parallel.ru wrote:
It isn't. But maintaining one file is easier. And having to maintain two
after five years everything worked fine with one is annoying.
This highlights the need for a test environment, don't apply untested
updates to
On 18.03.2015 16:55, Steven Carr wrote:
On 18 March 2015 at 13:30, Konstantin Stefanov cs...@parallel.ru wrote:
It isn't. But maintaining one file is easier. And having to maintain two
after five years everything worked fine with one is annoying.
This highlights the need for a test
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
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;};
On 18.03.2015 17:18, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
rOn 18.03.15 17:10, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
The issue is that named started to detect it since, if I'm not mistaken,
9.7. It happened because such config was leading to bugs, but instead of
fixing the bugs, the whole feature was prohibited.
rOn 18.03.15 17:10, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
The issue is that named started to detect it since, if I'm not mistaken,
9.7. It happened because such config was leading to bugs, but instead of
fixing the bugs, the whole feature was prohibited.
those bugs _were_ fixed: the in-view statement and
On 18.03.2015 18:37, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.03.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Konstantin Stefanov:
I wrote earlier and may repeat again. The feature for me is not using
the same file, the feature is having a clear and maitainable config. In
this case it means to have only one description for a
Am 18.03.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Konstantin Stefanov:
I wrote earlier and may repeat again. The feature for me is not using
the same file, the feature is having a clear and maitainable config. In
this case it means to have only one description for a zone.
did you ever consider provisioning your
definition for two view (cache file name problem)
Hello.
After upgrading from BIND 4.6 to 4.10.2, named requires that different slave
zone have separate file for cache.
With 4.6 I had the following config:
named.conf:
view internal {
match /* match condition */;
include common.zones
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 05:36:57PM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
After upgrading from BIND 4.6 to 4.10.2, named requires that
different slave zone have separate file for cache.
Surely you mean s/4/9/g, and yes, this is true.
With 4.6 I had the following config:
named.conf:
view
Referencing the same writable file in multiple places in named can:
* lead to corrupted journals
* the wrong zone content being published in the wrong view
* named not being able to serve zone content when restarted when the
master is down
* content not showing up in a timely manner
* extra
On 17.03.2015 19:34, Tony Finch wrote:
Constantin Stefanov cs...@parallel.ru wrote:
I found 'in-view' option, but again it requires two definitions for
every zone: one with file and masters directives, and another with
in-view option. Moreover, these two definitions must be in different
On 17.03.2015 18:32, /dev/rob0 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 05:36:57PM +0300, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
After upgrading from BIND 4.6 to 4.10.2, named requires that
different slave zone have separate file for cache.
Surely you mean s/4/9/g, and yes, this is true.
Of course, sorry.
With
.
-Original Message- From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of Constantin
Stefanov Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:37 AM To:
bind-users@lists.isc.org Subject: Single slave zone definition for
two view (cache file name problem)
Hello.
After
Hello.
After upgrading from BIND 4.6 to 4.10.2, named requires that different
slave zone have separate file for cache.
With 4.6 I had the following config:
named.conf:
view internal {
match /* match condition */;
include common.zones;
};
view external {
match /* match
Constantin Stefanov cs...@parallel.ru wrote:
I found 'in-view' option, but again it requires two definitions for
every zone: one with file and masters directives, and another with
in-view option. Moreover, these two definitions must be in different
files, as I have to include one in first
26 matches
Mail list logo
