Breaking apart large zone files.
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Fri Nov 19 00:30:29 UTC 2004
Brian F. wrote:
>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote in message news:<cne5q2$kbo$1 at sf1.isc.org>...
>>I can't imagine that breaking the zone into separate *files* like that
>>is going to help your reload time or performance impact, since named
>>still needs to read in all of the data in all of the files on a reload.
>>Breaking the zone up into separate *subzones*, however, if the structure
>>of the zone permits it, should help matters, if your twice-a-day script
>>is smart enough to reload just the subzones that have changed, the
>>downside being that now all your slaves need zone definitions for all of
>>those subzones, and there'll be some additional serial-checking and
>>zone-transfer overhead incurred. Even if all of the subzones change
>>twice a day, you might be able to stagger the subzone reloads to
>>minimize the impact.
>>It might be best to have your script make its changes incrementally via
>>Dynamic Update -- then you shouldn't need any forced reloads at all.
>> - Kevin
>But are there any issues with a zone file like the above? Can you have
>multiple includes for the same zone in a format like this?
Syntactically it should work fine. I just don't think it'll do you any good.
More information about the bind-users