On 30 July 2013 20:31, Brandon Whaley <brand...@inmotionhosting.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the bump here, but through extensive troubleshooting I've > identified a trend in this. It appears that zones hosted on the > lower-numbered masters are still updating without issue. This leads me to > believe that something is causing BIND to "forget" the later cluster > servers, as the logs show that it doesn't even try to query them for zone > updates. Is this known behavior? Perhaps a network failure causes a > master to be marked "bad" in newer versions of BIND? Restarting named on > the slave continues to correct the problem, so for now I'm (unfortunately) > restarting named frequently on this slave. > Can you post a snippet of one of your secondary zone config stanzas so we can see how you have the slave zone configured. >From previous posts to the list I think it was identified that BIND will contact the first master server listed and failover to the second master if the first wasn't contactable, but then it would ignore any additional masters. Would be good to get some clarification on this from ISC, I've tried to trace my way through the source code and can't identify where BIND decides which master to update from, all I can find is the code where it goes to cleanup if the server isn't contactable (bind-9.9.3-P2/lib/dns/zone.c ln:13647), but can't see where it would then choose another one and try again. Steve
_______________________________________________ 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
