BIND primary + secondary, how and how many

[David Botham]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org] On
> Behalf Of I=F1aki Mart=EDnez
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:07 AM
> To: Kevin Darcy
> Cc: bind-users
> Subject: Re: BIND primary + secondary, how and how many
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > Other nameservers don't really care which of your nameserver is
master
> > for a zone, and which are slaves:
> > they will fail over to a working, faster authoritative nameserver,
> > regardless of whether it is master or slave.
>=20
> OK..... is it important the order of the nameservers in the whois
> database????
>  I mean when you creates/changes the nameservers in the registrar.

No.

>=20
> > So, from a performance/server-reliability you may as well go with
> > whatever is easier to maintain. This would normally entail making
one
> > server the master for all of the domains.
>=20
>  Ok, it is easier to maintain with one master and rest slaves..... :-)
>=20
>=20
> > However, you should also assess the impact of not being able to make
> > changes to one or more domains while the master is down. Can you
really
> > tolerate not being able to change *any* of your 4 domains while the
> > master which hosts all of 4 of them is down? Perhaps it would be
better
> > to soften the impact by spreading the master duties around.
>=20
>  Changes to the domains are not so often, so i can tolerate not being
> able to change any domain for a time....
>=20
> > On the other
> > hand, if you're setting up an automatic or semi-automatic "in case
of
> > disaster, reconfigure slave as temporary master" mechanism, it might
be
> > easier to do this for only one master and one of the slaves...
>=20
>  Well, how much interesting is to reconfigure a slave to master when
the
> real master is down????
>  Which of the slave is better to reconfigure to master????

Does not matter.

>=20
>=20
>  Thank you for your answer......
>=20