New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
Which DNS site to use for domains
edited September 2011 in General
I was wondering, Wich DNS site/Provider (Free) Is the best. Because i need one for my new domain
That's my list
I think that dns.he.net has the best interface and network etc.
But I personally use my VPS'(s). I only have one at the moment, but huh! I want to order a UK VPS soon.
sed: -e expression #1, char 12: unterminated `s' command
I hear good things about dns.he.net but never used them, i use the free dns servers provided and included by my domain registrar and seems to work well
I use one of my BuyVM VPS's as the master with HE DNS slaves. HE has had a few too many outages in the past few months so I would caution you if you need reliability.
freedns.afraid.org? Just don't put it to public :P
I use CloudFlare for DNS - you can switch the CloudFlare protect off so it's just DNS if you want.
I handle my own DNS. I have multiple VPSes, with different providers, in different parts of the country, and it's pretty easy to set up zone transfers, especially if you're using something like Webmin on your main server.
Cloudflare network has a bit of history with alot of DDOS attacks, they'd affect DNS as well ???
I seem to recall that's usually what the attack is.
We discussed a few providers 9in this thread:
They have a lot of downtime, the last issue was their database has gone and it took them more than 24 hours to get everything back online I've moved most important domain to another provider.
I've found that dnstrouble.com (by softlayer) is the best so far, because this is the only providers provide free anycast dns
ns1.dallas-idc.com ; ns2.dallas-idc.com
I use HE DNS, it works well
I like pointhq.com mainly because of the url redirection feature.
I'm using HE DNS too, cool and easy to use
@eva2000 - CloudFlare provide you with two name servers to use - each on seperate boxes. So it SHOULD be redundant. I myself have actually never had any problems with them - but going by http://who.is/whois/cloudflare.com/ it seems they have a lot of name servers and so I could be a lucky user to be on some nice name servers
Using CloudFlare also allows you to edit TTL value down to 5 minutes if you want. With this kind of setup having their CDN to hand could be useful. If you site gets a traffic spike you can enable the CDN protection (since you can just use DNS and point traffic directly at your server if you want - CDN protection doesn't have to be used) and have traffic flowing via their systems in minutes. Could also be useful for some types of attacks.
Did anyone ever come up with a method of round robin between VPSes? I know we were discussing it on one of the other forums.
What's so difficult about DNS-round robin? MaraDNS:
Round robin is automatically executed in the DNS server, just setup like kyliix says.
Is it the case in BIND? Since if I'm right, you have to do a small change in config, not too sure, but I recall it didn't work out of the box when I tested round-robin with BIND I had to change some config and still it didn't function as it should, not sure why. Should it work out of the box in BIND as well?
Technically, multiple records of the same type like Kylix shows are just called an RRSet, and are supported by pretty much every DNS server (and service) there is. Round-robin is a specific sort of automated reordering of an RRSet by the server in a repeating circle. I think BIND defaults to always doing round-robin reordering of RRsets, but can be configured to do fixed ordering or random ordering, while NSD3 doesn't support any sort of reordering, I think, always using the order given in the zone file. MaraDNS seems pretty feature-ful, so I imagine it supports various reordering types too. Either way, in real life any of the stuff along the chain of a name resolution might change the order anyway, or the client might just ignore the ordering entirely.
Round-robin was originally used for load-balancing, to distribute a load amongst all members of the RRset randomly and therefore somewhat equally, but the load distribution has never been guaranteed and it's very much out of favour. Additionally, round-robin for load-distribution has been getting less reliable and will continue to do so. Technically, a client is supposed to ignore round-robined RRset ordering completely and always choose the server with the IP address that looks like it might be nearest by, which breaks using round-robin for load balancing. Most OSes added that support for RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9 address selection on IPv4 and then dropped it when problems became apparent, but it continues to mean round-robin load balancing is useless over IPv6 and also on IPv4 on older OSes (e.g. Vista).
As far as client-side failover across multiple records in an RRset, the order doesn't really matter, and it does seem to be silently somewhat supported by most everything (web browsers, ftp, telnet) now-a-days, but it's far from bullet-proof. Other solutions are much better than relying on the existence of client-side failover behaviour alone, but it can be beneficial when used in concert with some other solutions. Or if it's all you have available to you, it will provide better reliability than nothing at all.
what about zoneedit.com? is it good?
ZoneEdit is free for only a few zones AFAIK, so useless for me..
LinodeDNS, but its premium.
@fanovpn: Very well info and explanation, thank you!
And I came to know that one of other solutions was DNS failover, but I learned it isn't proven either because DNS at times doesn't work in harmony with frequent automatic changes of A records, meaning at times it's being useless for some clients because of ISPs and their cache, so effect might not show immediately for some of them! But even though, it's still being considered a more practical solution than Round-robin (if I'm not wrong)..
And why the hell did we have this big long discussion about it on the old forums where folks couldn't come up with an answer?....
@drmike: Because there's 8 million caveats and holes to client-side failover working, with problems possibly appearing if you use a proxy, or if Cache-Control headers are set, or if you're on a specific browser, or a specific OS, or the weather is looking a bit stormy, or any of the countless combinations of all those.
Plus the terminology is different from person to person and company to company. I don't think any of us were talking about the same thing at the same time in those threads, mostly. Some folks use "Round-Robin" to mean an RRset in general, or any dynamic reordering of an RRset on the DNS server, or a specifically round-robin-style reordering of the RRset, or using an RRset to allow for client-side failover, and many other things too, I'm sure.
@Go59952's term, "DNS failover", is also similarly abstract, something lots of companies claim to offer but no two services are quite the same idea. It sounds like in this instance it's a form of rewriting an RRset to remove a record when a host is down (and some companies call that whole service, again, "Round-Robin"!). To add to the confusion, that dnstrouble.com site has a blog entry which claims people are confused and "DNS failover" is actually another term for having an anycasted address for your DNS server!
Anyway, @Go59952, if that is rewritting of your record(s) when a host is down, with a low TTL, I've never tried it myself but it does seem like one of the easier, cheaper ways to do failover. You'll not get 100% coverage, of course, but folks do claim that the number of ISPs, etc. with caching resolvers that ignore low TTLs has gone done quite a bit over the years. And of course, there's nothing stopping you from serving a full RRset to allow those browsers that do support client-side failover to do so, and then let the remainder catch up with the rewritten RRset after the TTL expires.
Yep, I remember that I posted some experiments about this :S