DNS cluster

Brad Knowles brad at stop.mail-abuse.org
Fri Jul 8 14:21:58 UTC 2005


At 11:09 AM +0100 2005-07-08, Stelios A. wrote:

>  Now it makes sence. So my best is to have the ns1 (master) in a raid 5
>  machine  (not many chances to go down - better uptime)and the ns2 set up
>  as a secondary/slave in a second box with lower specs.

	No.  Because you can't control which server they will query 
first, both machines need to be equally resistant to faults.

>  Just to be sure...if I don't have synchronize all the records in the
>  secondary/slave dns then when the raid 5 server goes down the dns queries
>  will be forwarded automatic to the secondary dns, right?

	No.  Again, you can't control which one will be queried first. 
This isn't like MX records where you can say that one has a cost of 
10 and should always be contacted first, and the other has a cost of 
20, and should only be contacted if the primary is down.

	Outside of your site, no one in the Universe can tell which 
machine is primary and which machine is secondary.  They will make no 
distinction between the machines in terms of sending their queries, 
so you need to make sure that both machines are completely populated 
with information and suitably robustly configured.

>  Also all the times the queries will be only in the ns1 unless ofcourse
>  goes down. Right?

	No.

-- 
Brad Knowles, <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

     -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
     Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755

   SAGE member since 1995.  See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.



More information about the bind-users mailing list