Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Running a Web Hosting Business : Nameserver questions

[IMeanWebHosting]

How do some of these hosting companies have 100 servers that all use ns1.theirdomain.com and ns2.theirdomain.com, as opposed to ns1&ns2 for server one, ns3&ns4 for server 2, etc etc...? Thanks!

[Corey Bryant]

The name servers basically tell what IP address to point the FQDN to. So if you type in http://www.example.com - it might point to the IP address 10.10.10.10 on Server A, but http://sub.example.com might point to 10.10.10.11 on Server B

[IMeanWebHosting]

I mean, I saw a company that has MULTIPLE servers all using ns1 and ns2... How is this possible?

[rghf]

Via DNS clustering in WHM or whatever platofrm they use they can remotly update the ns1 and ns2. Of course putting together some custom code isn't that hard either

Rus

[cywkevin]

The downside is that if ns1 and ns2 become compromised you have a potentially large problem to deal with.

[colklink]

One DNS server can handle literally thousands of domains. The only reason you have more than one is for redundancy, not load balancing.

[Mad_Elektra]

One DNS server can handle literally thousands of domains. The only reason you have more than one is for redundancy, not load balancing.

====================
Agree..

[IMeanWebHosting]

So you all recommend that I just stick with ns1, ns2, ns3, ns4... etc etc and have individual nameservers for each server?

[colklink]

I hope I'm understanding the questions correctly. I'm assuming you're asking if you should have a name server for each server you manage. If so, my answer is:

No,

I would recommend that you have at least two servers (for redundancy) that act as name servers (you can call them ns1 and ns2).

These name servers will control the domain name -> IP resolution for all of your servers and virtual hosts. There is no need for each server you have to have its own name server.

[StevensOnln1]

Having two nameservers for each server you have is dead easy. You don't need to mess around with setting up DNS on a different server etc. Its definately the easiest way.

[IMeanWebHosting]

Originally posted by colklink
I hope I'm understanding the questions correctly. I'm assuming you're asking if you should have a name server for each server you manage. If so, my answer is:

No,

I would recommend that you have at least two servers (for redundancy) that act as name servers (you can call them ns1 and ns2).

These name servers will control the domain name -> IP resolution for all of your servers and virtual hosts. There is no need for each server you have to have its own name server.

No no, I was saying should I have 2 per server as oposed to using Ns1 and Ns2 clustered over multiple servers.

[colklink]

ns1 and ns2 should be separate machines, each running BIND. You don't have to use them exclusively as name servers.

Sometimes a host may run a single name server (usually because that is all the host has) but assign it two IPs and the names ns1 & ns2. This is done because you need to have 2 name servers registered for a domain name but the host only has 1 do-it-all server. This method is a kludge because it offers no redundancy. This is the only situation where it would make sense to have ns1 and ns2 point to the same server.

Does this answer your question?

[IMeanWebHosting]

::igh::: Nevermind.... The way I have it set up now
ns1.abnhosting.com and ns2.abnhosting.com are the nameservers for server 1.
ns3.abnhosting.com and ns4.abnhosting.com are the nameservers for server 2.

I saw a company that had all of their servers use the nameservers ns1 and ns2. I was just wondering how this was possible, and that was answered. Then I said "hey, should I just keep it the way I have it now".