[Dnsmasq-discuss] A (possibly bad) idea: failover in dnsmasq

[Don Muller]

I could be way off base here but here is my 2 cents. 

Maybe a better idea is to have all dnsmasq instances talking to each other listing each one with something like

partner=<ip or dns name>
partner=<ip or dns name>

Also add two more statements. One for the primary and one for the secondaries. 

primary=yes

secondary=1 or 2 or 3 etc

Each secondary has a differenet number and when the primary fails the secondary with the lowest number takes over until the primary comes back online. You could say that master=0. 

Maybe add a heartbeat statement that specifies how often the master will send keepalive messages out so everyone else knows he is still alive and well. 

Don

On May 26, 2012, at 11:18 PM, "richardvoigt at gmail.com" <richardvoigt at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Configuration on a primary looks like
>> 
>> --failover-listen= <port no>
>> 
>> Configuration on a secondary looks like
>> 
>> --failover-master=<IP of primary>,<port on primary>
> 
> 
> I think more consideration should go into the configuration command
> names, since putting a "fallover-master" option on a secondary is
> counter-intuitive.  After all, one doesn't put a "dhcp-authoritative"
> option on non-authoritative servers to tell them where to find the
> authoritative server.  Also, shouldn't the standby/failover behavior
> be linked to authoritative?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss