RE: [cobalt-users] [RaQ3] DNS primary and secondary on two RaQ3's

[flash22@xxxxxxx]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:

> >Do you mean to say it doesn't matter whether the secondary is set-up as
> a slave or >master? If not, in what cases *does* it matter?
> 
> Yes, I'd be interested to know that, too! I liked the idea of setting
> them both as primaries and rsync'ing. Will it matter. I guess the only
> reason you need to have them as secondary is so they will update
> automatically after you enter them. But the rsync idea would be better,
> you wouldn't even have to enter the secondary dns.

say 'master' not primary ;P

The only difference between master and slave is the slave asks the master
for it's zone data, if you are going to copy the zone data with rsync,
then there's no reason for it to be a slave, so it should be a master..

If you have identical DNS data across both machines, you can copy the
config file also, which will keep the list's of zones intact also..

for small zone files, rsync is actually slightly slower and uses slightmly
more bandwidth because of startup overhead, but you also get to encrypt
the data if you like, for larger zones (>~10k) rsync shows considerable
compression/speed/bandwidth improvment over AXFR...

gsh