I'm running bind in a chroot environment. It seems that since the Redhat snafu which wrecked bind (yes, I had caching nameserver running as well but not anymore) I have been having problem with my slave nameservers retrieving updates from the master.
Looking at the zone records, some are owned by root, some are owned by named. I'm now confused as to what the ownership should be and what permissions should be assigned. Could someone shed some light on this?
Thanks, John Hinton
Has anyone attempted this on Centos recently? ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hinton" webmaster@ew3d.com To: CentOS@caosity.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 11:43 AM Subject: [Centos] Bind Issues
I'm running bind in a chroot environment. It seems that since the Redhat snafu which wrecked bind (yes, I had caching nameserver running as well but not anymore) I have been having problem with my slave nameservers retrieving updates from the master.
Looking at the zone records, some are owned by root, some are owned by named. I'm now confused as to what the ownership should be and what permissions should be assigned. Could someone shed some light on this?
Thanks, John Hinton _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yes, running two Machines in bonding mode over two Cisco 3750 to an Netapp Filer.
Please, for the next question open a new Thread!
Best regards, Johannes
support@dynacomp.net schrieb: | Has anyone attempted this on Centos recently?
I'm not sure if it would accomplish what I need. Basically I was thinking of using bonding on interfaces 1-3 (Wan) Connection to add redundancy usage of all wan links to our (router/gateway/firewall) for internal LAN.
My goal is to utilize all 3 connections or load-Balance/Share them any suggestions?
Would Channel Bonding work for what I want to do?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Johannes Puschmann" puschl@puschl.at To: "CentOS discussion and information list" centos@caosity.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Centos] Channel Bonding
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yes, running two Machines in bonding mode over two Cisco 3750 to an Netapp Filer.
Please, for the next question open a new Thread!
Best regards, Johannes
support@dynacomp.net schrieb: | Has anyone attempted this on Centos recently? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCB60VvE0toH4I1QURAi/rAKCn7LfYm3TOhgxaOhixfTFnZneA8wCfV9db LJMh8xQU335dHEJM0MdUl0o= =dOOm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
If this are real WAN-Links, you have no chance with bonding. Bonding is for BOX===Switch===Box configurations.
For your Problem try the Advanced Routing Howto and/or iproute2. http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Adv-Routing-HOWTO/index.html
support@dynacomp.net schrieb:
I'm not sure if it would accomplish what I need. Basically I was thinking of using bonding on interfaces 1-3 (Wan) Connection to add redundancy usage of all wan links to our (router/gateway/firewall) for internal LAN.
My goal is to utilize all 3 connections or load-Balance/Share them any suggestions?
Would Channel Bonding work for what I want to do?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Johannes Puschmann" puschl@puschl.at To: "CentOS discussion and information list" centos@caosity.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Centos] Channel Bonding
support@dynacomp.net wrote:
I'm not sure if it would accomplish what I need. Basically I was thinking of using bonding on interfaces 1-3 (Wan) Connection to add redundancy usage of all wan links to our (router/gateway/firewall) for internal LAN.
The linux bonding driver can be configured for load balancing & redundancy. Ie: normally 3 links used to TX but if one goes down, it will use the other 2.
Your problem might be on the switch end. AFAIK, Cisco offers a few different hashing methods (based on MAC or IP) but not load balancing. Their theory is that you want to keep one TCP session on one link to prevent out of order packets.
Still, we use 3 * fast ethernet to a cisco 6509 without any problems and we do get 3 * the throughput.
John.
My goal is to utilize all 3 connections or load-Balance/Share them any suggestions?
Would Channel Bonding work for what I want to do?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Johannes Puschmann" puschl@puschl.at To: "CentOS discussion and information list" centos@caosity.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Centos] Channel Bonding
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yes, running two Machines in bonding mode over two Cisco 3750 to an Netapp Filer.
Please, for the next question open a new Thread!
Best regards, Johannes
support@dynacomp.net schrieb: | Has anyone attempted this on Centos recently? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCB60VvE0toH4I1QURAi/rAKCn7LfYm3TOhgxaOhixfTFnZneA8wCfV9db LJMh8xQU335dHEJM0MdUl0o= =dOOm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 11:43 -0500, John Hinton wrote:
I'm running bind in a chroot environment. It seems that since the Redhat snafu which wrecked bind (yes, I had caching nameserver running as well but not anymore) I have been having problem with my slave nameservers retrieving updates from the master.
Looking at the zone records, some are owned by root, some are owned by named. I'm now confused as to what the ownership should be and what permissions should be assigned. Could someone shed some light on this?
Thanks, John Hinton
What user are you running named as?
What user is generating the zone files?
Ted
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Ted Kaczmarek wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 11:43 -0500, John Hinton wrote:
I'm running bind in a chroot environment. It seems that since the Redhat snafu which wrecked bind (yes, I had caching nameserver running as well but not anymore) I have been having problem with my slave nameservers retrieving updates from the master.
Looking at the zone records, some are owned by root, some are owned by named. I'm now confused as to what the ownership should be and what permissions should be assigned. Could someone shed some light on this?
Thanks, John Hinton
What user are you running named as?
What user is generating the zone files?
Ted
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Had the same issue
On your DNS slaves you need to change your named.conf file to have directory prefix of slaves file "slaves/somefile.db"
Then things works with the slave zone transfers.
//Chris
-
Christian Nygaard -
Johannes Puschmann -
John Hinton -
John Newbigin -
support＠dynacomp.net -
Ted Kaczmarek