🚀 go-pugleaf

'Dungeon' Dave wrote:
> 
> .. and it came to pass that Ian Northeast
> <ian@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk> uttered forth:

> > You
> >should have one master and any number of slaves (a slave can be a
> >slave
> >to another slave BTW). The slaves will survive the absence of the master
> >as long as the expiration period on the domain - typically a few days at
> >least.
> 
> .. but will not automatically update the db files from the master, only
> the cache.

Eh? Slaves update their db files from the master, that is the point. It
is indeed possible to configure a slave to keep its data in memory only
but this is not the usual way to do it, it would cause the slave to lose
all its data if it was restarted for any reason. Slaves do *not* get
their cache from the master, the cache is built from the results of
queries the server has made, this process is identical on a master or a
slave.

Older versions of bind (<8) used the term "cache" to refer to the hints
file for the root nameservers; this is misleading. This file is never
transferred between master and slaves. The older versions also used
"cache" to mean what it still does - ephemeral information built up from
queries made previously and used to save repeated queries.

Regards, Ian