Secondary refresh tuning
Simon at wretched.demon.co.uk
Wed Dec 4 11:08:44 UTC 2002
Don Stokes wrote:
> I'm looking at upgrading to BIND 9, which of course does not have a
> separate named-xfer. BIND 9 does have minimum and maximum refresh/retry
> periods, which would help. But I'm not really sure what the effect of
> hundreds of defunct zones would be on BIND 9.
> Would 400 or so defunct primaries stop an active zone being updated
> immediately if a notify for it was received?
I think if all the resources allocated to BIND for transfers
were in use it might, you have some other tuning in the
"max-transfer*" "transfers-*" options. Between these and the
"min" SOA limits I think you'll be able to recreate most of what
you had in BIND 8, or even do far better.
max-transfer-idle-in default is an hour, which seems kind of
transfers-in default is 10, which seems kind of low.
I guess if your name servers are NAT'ed or similar it is fairly
painless to suck it and see.
More information about the bind-users