On 7/25/19 8:14 AM, Nataraj wrote: > On 7/25/19 6:48 AM, rainer at ultra-secure.de wrote: >> Am 2019-07-25 15:41, schrieb hw: >>> On 7/25/19 2:53 PM, rainer at ultra-secure.de wrote: >>>> Am 2019-07-25 14:51, schrieb hw: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> how can DNS reliability, as experienced by clients on the LAN who are >>>>> sending queries, be increased? >>>>> >>>>> Would I have to set up some sort of cluster consisting of several >>>>> servers all providing DNS services which is reachable under a single >>>>> IP address known to the clients? >>>>> >>>>> Just setting up several name servers and making them known to the >>>>> clients >>>>> for the clients to automatically switch isn't a good solution because >>>>> the clients take their timeouts and users lacking even the most basic >>>>> knowledge inevitably panic when the first name server does not answer >>>>> queries. >>>> Run a local cache (unbound) and enter all your local resolvers as >>>> upstreams. >>> That can fail just as well --- or be even worse when the clients >>> can't switch >>> over anymore. I have that and am avoiding to use it for some clients >>> because >>> it takes a while for the cache to get updated when I make changes. >>> >>> However, if that cache fails, chances are that the internet >>> connection is also >>> down in which case it can be troublesome to even get local host names >>> resolved. >>> When that happens, trouble is to be expected. >> >> Anything else is - IMHO - much more work, much more complicated and >> much more likely to fail, in a more spectacular way. >> Especially all those keepalive "solutions". >> >> I have found that I need to restart unbound if all upstreams had failed. > > Configure all dns servers as primary slaves (plus 1 primary master) for > your own domains. I have never seen problems with resolution of local > dns domains when the Internet was down. I meant to say: Configure all dns servers as secondary/slaves (one should be the primary master) for your own domains. Thos means that all of your servers are authoritative for your own domains, so they cannot fail on local dns lookups due to Internet problems. > > Depending on the size of your network, you can run a caching server on > each host (configured as a primary slave for your own domains) and then > configure that local server to use forwarders. When you use multiple > forwarders the local server does not have to wait for timeouts before > querying another server. Then you just run 2 or more servers to use for > forwarding. Use forward-only to force all local servers to use only > forwarding (for security and caching reasons). Much simpler than using > keepalived. In recent years I *have not had any* problems with bind9 or > powerdns crashing. > > As far as using the ISC server vs powerdns, you may want to check on > peoples recent experiences. There was a time when many thought powerdns > had much better performance and fewer security issues. For various > reasons I've seen some people including myself, switch back to ISC > bind9. I switched about 1.5 years ago because I was getting better > performance from bind9. You may want to check out other peoples > experience before switching to powerdns. > > > Nataraj > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos