Single slave zone definition for two view (cache file name problem)

Constantin Stefanov cstef at
Wed Mar 18 08:48:40 UTC 2015

I see why it may lead to problems.

But in fact the configuration with only one writable file referenced
several times is suported now. If I write:

view "view1" {
	zone "" {
		masters {IP;};
		file "slave/";

view "view2" {
	zone "" {
		in-view "view1";

then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
I missing something about "in-view" directive?

And if I'm right, the only question is how to simplify the configuration
so not to have two definitions in two files for every slave zone which
is shared between views.

On 18.03.2015 1:25, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Referencing the same writable file in multiple places in named can:
> * lead to corrupted journals
> * the wrong zone content being published in the wrong view
> * named not being able to serve zone content when restarted when the
>   master is down
> * content not showing up in a timely manner
> * extra zone transfers recovering from the above
> If you failed to experience one or more of these you were lucky.
> There is a good chance that some of these things were happening and
> you were not even aware.
> We got bug reports about all of these events that were caused by
> the same writable file being referenced multiple times.
> Referencing the same writeable file multiple times has never been
> a supported configuration.  This is now being caught.
> Mark

Константин Стефанов,

Лаборатория параллельных информационных технологий НИВЦ МГУ

тел. +7 (495) 939-23-41

More information about the bind-users mailing list