Ok for Views to use same Zone information?

Kevin Darcy kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Sat Sep 8 03:08:38 UTC 2007


Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <fbqnhi$1b71$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>  "Paine, Thomas Asa" <PAINETA at uwec.edu> wrote:
>
>   
>> For example if View 1 and View 2 differ in options, but don't really differ 
>> in zone information is it ok to do this...
>>
>> view "view1" {
>>         <specific view1 options and/or zones>
>>
>>         zone "foobar.com" {
>>                 type slave;
>>                 file "db.foobar.com";
>>                 masters { somelist; };
>>         };
>> };
>>
>> view "view2" {
>>         <specific view2 options and/or zones>
>>
>>         zone "foobar.com" {
>>                 type slave;
>>                 file "db.foobar.com";
>>                 masters { somelist; };
>>         };
>> };
>>
>> Will bind use the same instance/cache/backups regarding file "db.foobar.com" 
>> or do the two zone declarations have to specify unique files?
>>     
>
> It's OK to do this for master zones, but not for slave zones.  The 
> problem is that both views might try to transfer the zone concurrently, 
> and both try to write to the same file.
>   
It would probably be relatively easy, code-wise, to prevent this 
overwriting, if such protection doesn't already exist. But why bother? 
It's so easy for the administrator to just specify unique paths, and 
using the same file is unlikely to save much disk space. Personally, I 
prefer to give each view its own zonefile directory, to enforce the 
separation even more...

                                                                         
               - Kevin



More information about the bind-users mailing list