I plan to go on a different company for domain registar and for hosting. How much domain registar/ip forwarding can influence genral site speed and email forwarding speed?

How about namecheap speed compare to other registar company?

I think it's a great idea to have a different registrar and hosting service.

But, I wonder why you aren't using your host's nameservers and email services? Then, if there are any problems, the host can't point their finger at the registrar's nameservers.

URL forwarding from your registrar should not affect site performance that much, but the search engines will only show the ACTUAL web address, not the original one. So if you have Site1.com forwarded to Site2.com/page3892.htm, then the later will be what the search engines will show as the URL (web address) of the page.

In addition, I have found that there can be great delays and mystery missing emails with email forwarding. eNom, NameCheap's backend registrar, has had problems with this feature in the past (like most registrars I believe). Personally, I have found email forwarding to not be reliable enough for business purposes, but that's just my experience.

Thanks u for replying so fast and in a so accurate fashion!

I wonder.. as you say email forwarding is not the best, what should I use instead of it?
-
-

If you have a good host, they should be able to provide you with reliable email service: either POP3 or webmail based.

I know that others will probably disagree with me. But I had several of my domains set up with email forwarding under eNom and I had several reliable people upset that I did not respond to their emails. So, after testing it myself, I found that the email forwarding service was just not working for several days at a time. Other tests revealed substantial delays of up to 24 hours to receive a forwarded email. So, when it works - it works! When it doesn't - you don't even know!

If you have a static IP address, there's no reason to do IP/URL forwarding, even if you use your registrar's name servers. Just set A and maybe CNAME and MX records on their servers. Doing this is much faster than URL forwarding, because DNS information can be cached quite close to the end users.

Using your registrar's name servers gives you geographic redundancy you won't get running your own on one box.

Using your registrar's name servers gives you geographic redundancy you won't get running your own on one box.

There's no real need to use geographically redundant DN servers, if you're running one box. If it's dead, redundant DNS surely would not help... :)

There's no real need to use geographically redundant DN servers, if you're running one box. If it's dead, redundant DNS surely would not help... :)

Good point, why bother is you have one box

If you don't find reliable DNS to be of value, then by all means run it from your box.

If you have your mail going to a third party service, or you want people to be able to distinguish between your box being down and your domain being incorrectly configured, or you just want to abide by RFC 2182, then you should have multiple redundant DNS servers. The easiest way to do that is to have your registrar provide DNS.

sailorFred >> IF IF IF IF... :) Yes, IF you have 5 MX records, 16 A records and 585 CNAME records, redundancy WILL help. However, IF the person is running 1 box with all traffic going there, it's really no need to use multiple, geographically dispersed DNS.

Fine. I just want people to know there are alternatives.

One use for having DNS be independent of your box is to be able to ping it by name to see how degraded service is. Sometimes you can still ssh into it to do the reboot without having to call your provider. It's more convenient to use the DNS name than the IP address.

The experience level of the OP means that he should use the simplest method that works reliably for him.

If he's using CPanel or similar on his box, with email, http, and DNS easily supported there, then he can use that box for that, understanding that this breaks RFC 2182, and if his box is down, some users will think his domain doesn't exist vs. the box being down.

If the registrar is reasonable, then using their DNS is easy, reliable, and distributed, as well as meeting RFC 2182.

Last week, WHT was down for a night due to DNS mismanagement. They run it themselves, and are knowledgeable about DNS. Yet, when the site went away, it was because the authoritative DNS servers were down or misconfigured. The IP addresses are consecutive, so it's possible they are on the same machine. The rest of their site is distributed, yet they were down due to DNS.