multi-master with mysql backend

[Warren Kumari]

On Feb 8, 2011, at 10:47 AM, fddi wrote:

> I need really something very simple:
> 
> 
> I have 2 domain name servers, I need them to be multi-master

Please explain -- *why* do you need multimaster?


> so I will put a mysql instance on each one,
> the two mysql servers in sync whith each other.
> 
> when one of the servers goes down, the other continue to work.

If you have "traditional" master-slave and the "master" goes down, the slave will continue to serve the last information it had (at least, until the expire timer goes "boing"). 

So, make Server_A be the master, Server_B the slave and set expire to be a couple of weeks. Assuming Server_A goes kablooie, you have 2 weeks to promote Server_B from slave to master...


> 
> There are very few entry in hte database let;s say 10 entries of important internet services which must be
> always avaliable... that's it nothing complicate.

Yup.

> 
> now I coudl succesfully build my own bind RPM for CentOS with mysql backend support.
> I simply used mysql-bind driver patches

Ah, but now, suddenly, it *is* complicated...

Seriously, unless you have some pathological use case traditional master/ slave is way way more stable...
W


> 
> http://mysql-bind.sourceforge.net/
> 
> 
> now I am trying them out
> 
> 
> thank you for all the suggestions you gave me
> 
> 
> Riccardo
> 
> On 2/8/11 4:28 PM, Gary Wallis wrote:
>> fddi wrote:
>>> 
>>> thank you for hte thread you pointed me.
>>> Actaully I do not have performance issue, but I just need DNS multi-master.
>>> I could succesfully apply mysql-bind patches.
>>> I have only one zone with few hosts.
>>> 
>>> thank you very much
>>> 
>>> Riccardo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/8/11 3:30 PM, Terry. wrote:
>>>> 2011/2/8 fddi<fddi at gmx.it>:
>>>>> I have considered dlz, but it does mocu more than simply mysql backend and
>>>>> seems too way complicate for my porpouse.
>>>>> At hte end I am considering using this mysql-bind:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://mysql-bind.sourceforge.net/
>>>>> 
>>>> You may read this one of the mailing list archive:
>>>> https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/2008-April/069884.html
>>>> 
>>>> Terry.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bind-users mailing list
>>>> bind-users at lists.isc.org
>>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bind-users mailing list
>>> bind-users at lists.isc.org
>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>>> 
>> 
>> A nice way to deal with what Riccardo's needs is to use ISC BIND configured statically (keeps all advantages of a pure BIND system) but from a MySQL database that has web apps for end users to manage their own zone data. BIND was not meant for end users with little to no DNS expertise to manage their RRs. Some middleware is required.
>> 
>> This is not a new concept but developed from pure dynamic websites to ones that "printed" static copies of their pages -now proxies are also used as well as memcache for SQL query caching.
>> 
>> See wikipedia for dns management software.
>> 
>> Cheers!
>> Gary
>> _______________________________________________
>> bind-users mailing list
>> bind-users at lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bind-users mailing list
> bind-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
>