On 12/8/2009 10:21 AM, Columbo wrote:
> We currently host our external DNS servers in-house. It has been
> recommended that we move one of the servers off site. I asked our
> ISP if they could bring up a DNS server as an authoritative secondary
> name server (NS2.domain.com). They replied "wouldn't it be better to
> use them as a slave off of our master."
I'm betting that your ISP misunderstood you to mean that you were
wanting a additional (non-multi-) master name server. I.e. you would
have two separate (non-connected) servers that were both authoritative
for the same zone, thus having to do duplicate administrative work.
> I don't know if it would be better or not. Can someone tell me why
> it would be better or worse to use master/slave instead of multiple
> master?
If you have two (or more) independent master servers that are not using
AD's multi-master replication, you will end up with two (or more)
separate servers that you have to administer, thus duplicating
administration tasks.
Where as if you have the DNS server hosted at your ISP slave (i.e. do
zone transfers) from a DNS server at your office, you only have to
administer the one master DNS server.
I personally would want the DNS server hosted at the ISP to be a slave
and neither traditional (non-communicating) multi-master or AD
(communicating) multi-master. (I'd avoid the AD multi-master for
security reasons as I see no reason to have AD functionality on the
ISP's end.)
Grant. . . .
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
