-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Multiple Peers (3+ piholes in sync) #327
Comments
The way I'd advise handling multiple for now, sort of reverts back to the master/secondary model, where one Pi-hole is the source of truth, where all changes are made (but Gravity Sync is not installed) and the other 2 (3, 4, etc) all are configured to point to it. There is already an option for the installer that functions similar to how the legacy (3.x) one did, that will prep the master with all the necessary components and settings but not deploy Gravity Sync. I just didn't publish it yet.
At some point I may develop a better way 😈 |
Has this been improved upon? I'm trying to do what you've suggested but running into issues. |
No, we haven't made any significant changes to 4.x that would change this. |
Good to know.
Here is the error from checking the status of gravity.service...
Jan 09 18:34:37 pihole2 sudo[11921]: REDACTED : TTY=unknown ; PWD=/ ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/bin/mv /tmp/05-pihole-custom-cname.conf.gsb /etc/dnsmasq.d/05-pihole-custom-cname.conf [EDIT] Let me know if you'd rather me create a new ticket for this issue. |
Thought this might be relevant too... ~$ gravity-sync pull Enough spam for now. :) |
I've setup two Pi-holes and set them syncing. Subsequently I have setup a third. I did a gravity-sync pull and it seems to have successfully pulled the settings. I would like a proper three-way sync but is there anything wrong with a pair syncing and then doing a pull from the third? |
With the v4 rewrite - it appears it may be easier to support multiple peers to keep 3 or more pi-holes in sync rather than only two. Prior to v4 this was easily accomplished given two+ secondaries could connect to a single master pihole. However, given the re-write to peering and use of non-unique md5 hash file names it appears this usecase is no longer supported.
This can likely be fixed by ensuring the md5 hash files are more unique in addition to allowing multiple hosts to be configured.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: