webserver test environment

Gary vex555 at gmx.net
Thu Feb 26 19:38:09 UTC 2004


(afterthought)

Or do I just alias the second IP in the master zone file somehow?

TIA, Gary

On Wed,
25 Feb 2004 06:11:23-0800 Jeff Lasman <blists at nobaloney.net> wrote:

> to have two physical servers?  Or just using one server?  If you're 
> going to be running only one physical server you'll only be running
> one instance of DNS, which will answer on two IP#s.  However you'll be
> running only one "master" server and no "slaves".  A lot of people on 
> this list, including me, think this is a bad idea, because you won't 
> have any redundancy, but we'll leave that for another thread.

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the interesting answer. You've raised a new question though
which I'll ask first if don't mind...
The real webserver is a single box running it's own nameservers. So yes
I know it's a bad idea but there is no redundancy at the moment anyway.

> The important distinction is that if you're running only one physical 
> nameserver you shouldn't have any slave records in your bind.conf file
> at all; many people make this mistake so I did want to point it out.

I assumed that I set up a master zone file and a slave for the two
nameservers (with my two IPs). You mention that this is wrong. How
should I set it up? With a 'backup' primary as the second nameserver? 

Ive got "dns and bind" and "dns and bind cookbook" and of course neither
say how to set this up (that I can see) as it's not recommended.

I can't help thinking it must be a very common scenario though.

I'd appreciate clarification on how to set this up.

(As far as the local testing goes, half of the incentive was to simply
test the httpd set up - I guess that using hosts file is simplest for
this. )

BTW using OpenBSD and bind9
Thanks, Gary




More information about the bind-users mailing list