🚀 go-pugleaf

.. and it came to pass that Ian Northeast 
<ian@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk> uttered forth:
>
>Eh? Slaves update their db files from the master, that is the point.

Shit - they do? :-( Guess I'll have to go back to the drawing board. I 
know that caches can be neighboured (zone transfers, etc) but I thought 
this was only the contents held in memory, not the /var/named files.

> It
>is indeed possible to configure a slave to keep its data in memory only

Exactly the reason I didn't build a slave...

>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.

... but precisely a reason why I should have. Grrrrrr!

> 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.

Aha!
>
>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.

Ah... ok. Ta for this info - severe case of "tree, barking, that one 
instead" situation. Glad to have been put right on the issue, and 
furthermore it also means that I can achieve what I want using a 
master/slave DNS server.

What's your knowledge of DNS under DeadRat6.1 like? Can I pump you for 
more info at all? Most of mine has been gleaned from the HowTos.

-- 

"Dungeon" Dave, in anti-harvest mode...

From: abuse@yahoo.com
From: abuse@btinternet.com
From: *@localhost