On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:34:42AM -0700, Frank Even wrote:
>> > In this particular instance, the masters ended up under maintenance
>> > shortly after these boxes rebooted, so they were unable to trans
In article ,
/dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:34:42AM -0700, Frank Even wrote:
> > In this particular instance, the masters ended up under maintenance
> > shortly after these boxes rebooted, so they were unable to transfer
> > the zone from them for another 2 hours. These boxes w
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:34:42AM -0700, Frank Even wrote:
> The subject is about the only way I can think to describe a
> situation we've run into recently. First here is the system:
>
> [root@dns]# cat /etc/redhat-release
> CentOS release 6.6 (Final)
> [root@dns]# rpm -q bind
> bind-9.8.2-0.3
What's the SOA? It's possible that the zones were not expired, so they
were provided as saved on disk. Since BIND wasn't able to transfer
newer versions, it continued providing old versions.
On 26.03.15 12:48, Frank Even wrote:
Yes, the old versions were provided on disk on initial load. But
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> What's the SOA? It's possible that the zones were not expired, so they
>>> were
>>> provided as saved on disk. Since BIND wasn't able to transfer newer
>>>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
What's the SOA? It's possible that the zones were not expired, so they were
provided as saved on disk. Since BIND wasn't able to transfer newer
versions, it continued providing old versions.
On 26.03.15 12:48, Frank Even wrote:
Y
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 26.03.15 11:34, Frank Even wrote:
>>
>> Zone files were in place for the necessary domains, but were outdated
>> (assuming one of our updates broke something somewhere, they were all
>> on average 3 months old).
>
>
>> Here is wh
On 26.03.15 11:34, Frank Even wrote:
Zone files were in place for the necessary domains, but were outdated
(assuming one of our updates broke something somewhere, they were all
on average 3 months old).
Here is where the issue is. I've generally found if BIND fails to
write the zone, it gener
Am 26.03.2015 um 19:34 schrieb Frank Even:
Zone files were in place for the necessary domains, but were outdated
(assuming one of our updates broke something somewhere, they were all
on average 3 months old)
I guess the question really is, is this expected behavior or a bug?
after 3 months th
The subject is about the only way I can think to describe a situation
we've run into recently. First here is the system:
[root@dns]# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.6 (Final)
[root@dns]# rpm -q bind
bind-9.8.2-0.30.rc1.el6_6.2.x86_64
So, we got bit by a chroot permissions issue (unsure
10 matches
Mail list logo