advantages/disadvantages of hidden vs. real primary (on a 1 MBit link)

[Frank Joerdens]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 06:51:39PM +0000, Barry Margolin wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >configuration (the tech person at the new provider's I talked to today
> >didn't really know what it was, had to admit that he was out of his
> >depth and that he would have to ask a more knowledgeable colleague; the
> 
> The people operating the slave servers don't have to do anything!  Hidden
> primary is implemented entirely by the administrator of the master server
> and the person who submits the domain registration.  The slave servers are
> set up the same as if the primary wasn't hidden.

I suspected as much but since I've never set up the slaves I wasn't a
100% about it. What's potentially confusing, if the concept is foreign
to the ISP's staff, is that none of their servers is set up as master
but still registered as such (I can see myself already on the phone,
trying to get this across to every single one of them one after the
other . . . ).

[ . . . ]
> We're using a hidden primary because it means that all the advertised
> servers are configured identically.  If one of them dies we can recreate it
> easily from a jumpstart CD, or we can use a hot spare that just needs its
> IP address reconfigured.  If the master dies, all the advertised servers
> will continue to operate (we won't be able to push out changes until the
> master is rebuilt, but that's not as critical).

That's a good argument but since I won't be responsible for any of the
slaves, it does not apply to our situation.

Thanks, Frank