rndc (and now nsupdate too)
Mike Hoskins (michoski)
michoski at cisco.com
Fri Aug 1 13:44:20 UTC 2014
From: Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net>
Organization: the lounge interactive design
Date: Friday, August 1, 2014 at 9:23 AM
To: "bind-users at lists.isc.org" <bind-users at lists.isc.org>
Subject: Re: rndc (and now nsupdate too)
>Am 01.08.2014 um 15:14 schrieb Mike Hoskins (michoski):
>> From: Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at>
>> Date: Friday, August 1, 2014 at 5:31 AM
>> To: Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net>
>> Cc: "bind-users at lists.isc.org" <bind-users at lists.isc.org>
>> Subject: Re: rndc (and now nsupdate too)
>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>>> Am 31.07.2014 um 21:08 schrieb /dev/rob0:
>>>>> The proper tool to manage zone data is nsupdate(8). Likewise well
>>>>> suited for automation.
>>>> zone file *editing*?
>>>> sorry, no, i developed 2008 a interface to create all zone files based
>>>> on database records, write the complete zone content in a main table
>>>> with a textfiled and a second textfiled where translation for NAT/WAN
>>>> zones happens and so there is and never was a reason to *edit* a
>>>> zone file
>>>> it is created from scratch when changes in a zone happen and cronjobs
>>>> only pull zones with the "updated-field" set to 1
>>> In our setup, changes made in the database are turned into an nsupdate
>>> script, so we don't need to bounce the name server and we can use
>>> BIND's automatic signing.
>> no argument on nsupdate, but even if you copy files around...you don't
>> need to bounce the nameserver, unless rndc reload is what you mean
>> hear bounce i think stop/start)
>since when is -SIGHUP stop/start?
i suspect a language barrier, since if you read what i typed i never said
that. in fact, i'm not sure you read what Tony typed either.
"bouncing a daemon" often means stop/start. whether you rndc reload or
HUP, such a restart is not needed on zone changes. my entire point is
that a costly full restart is not needed, even without nsupdate.
i'm sure Tony knows this, and simply wanted to clarify for posterity in
the thread archive.
More information about the bind-users