nsd users - Dec 2019 - tinydns to nsd

I have used tinydns for many many years now and it has always worked
very well. I like its simplicity: 1 text file is converted into a cdb
database, there's no master/slave environment (all nameservers are
equal) and synchronisation is done by rsync. Tinydns is run by runit, a
supervise system.

I'm looking at NSD now and I think I can use NSD the same way I use
tinydns. The only difference is the "one file contains it all" system,
but that's rather easy to script. Just rsync the zone files and send a
HUP to the supervisor. If a nameserver is not reachable it it will
autmagically synchronise.

Are there good reasons *not* to use nsd this way? This will not be a
1000000 queries per second system BTW.

R.

-- 
richard lucassen
http://contact.xaq.nl/

On 21/12/2019 13:01, richard lucassen via nsd-users wrote:

Hi Richard,
> I'm looking at NSD now and I think I can use NSD the same way I use
> tinydns. The only difference is the "one file contains it all"
system,
> but that's rather easy to script. Just rsync the zone files and send a
> HUP to the supervisor. If a nameserver is not reachable it it will
> autmagically synchronise.
> 
> Are there good reasons *not* to use nsd this way? This will not be a
> 1000000 queries per second system BTW.
This is a perfectly reasonable way to use NSD. In fact, it is somewhat
better than using zone transfers between one NSD master and some slaves,
because NSD is only able to provide a full AXFR, but not an incremental
IXFR. So rsyncing the zones is probably the most efficient. As a side
effect, you don't need to arrange for NOTIFY between the servers, nor
any kind of XFR ACLs or TSIG keys.

Regards,
Anand