In article <mailman.1.1320621651.68562.bind-us...@lists.isc.org>, Chris Thompson <c...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Nov 5 2011, Alan Clegg wrote: > > >On 11/5/2011 4:21 AM, kalpesh varyani wrote: > >> How does this feature address the risk that data provided by one master > >> might get overwritten by another? > > > >The use of the word "masters" in the configuration of a slave zone is a > >bit misleading. Under most circumstances, you list the authoritative > >servers, not "multiple masters". > > Although Alan doesn't say so, this might suggest to some that you should > list *all* the authoritative servers. That's a very bad idea - you need > to arrange that the directed graph of "A can fetch from B" is acyclic. > Otherwise servers can get into the state that A thinks its copy of the > zone is up to date because B told it so, and B thinks so because A told > it so (or longer loops, of course), while neither of them are true masters > for it. I don't think it's a problem. As long as ANY of the servers in the masters list have a higher serial number, you'll fetch from it. So if you have three servers, A, B, and C, A will check the serial numbers on both B and C, and pull from whichever has a higher serial number than the serial A already has. -- Barry Margolin Arlington, MA _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
