cache only

Barry Margolin barmar at bbnplanet.com
Mon Jan 3 15:24:23 UTC 2000


In article <Pine.HPX.4.05.10001021615510.21760-100000 at bluejay.creighton.edu>,
L. F. Sheldon, Jr. <lsheldon at creighton.edu> wrote:
>On 2 Jan 2000, Marek Narkiewicz wrote:
>
>> I wish to run a few nameds on some mail hubs at work.
>
>I accomlish that (and other Good Things) by running a name server (usually
>"named") as a "secondary" on each machine.

His Subject line says "cache only".  Why would he need to make a
caching-only server be secondary?

>The down side of that is it takes an hour (instead of the advertized 30
>minutes) for updates to "get around".

What updates need to get around on a caching-only server?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.



More information about the bind-users mailing list