Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto / New York
    Posts
    163

    * Google DNS for Forward Lookups from server?

    The colo facility I am considering doesn't operate DNS servers for forward lookups. I guess this is common..? Anyway they are suggesting that I use Google DNS for forward DNS lookups from my server.

    Is that a good suggestion? Not sure what to think, but it seems harmless though. Thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    /bin/sh
    Posts
    814
    Not too common, but not uncommon either. use 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, opendns resolvers etc etc, i'm sure others will have more suggestions.

    Google also have phone support
    http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/using.html

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    2,129
    It's easier to recommend it when you are nearby to a Google peering exchange, and you don't have the time or resources to keep resolver servers running. Or simply don't want to take the blame when the resolver goes down. Sometimes it's faster than using the uplink servers (i.e., in my case, the Google resolvers are local in Miami via peering, the carrier servers are one in NY and one in LAX). The IPs for Google and Level3 servers are easier to remember also...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto / New York
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by iptelligent View Post
    It's easier to recommend it when you are nearby to a Google peering exchange, and you don't have the time or resources to keep resolver servers running. Or simply don't want to take the blame when the resolver goes down. Sometimes it's faster than using the uplink servers (i.e., in my case, the Google resolvers are local in Miami via peering, the carrier servers are one in NY and one in LAX). The IPs for Google and Level3 servers are easier to remember also...
    Thanks. How do I check if the facility is close to a Google peering exchange?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    2,129
    ping 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and see how many milliseconds it takes to reply.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto / New York
    Posts
    163
    About 25ms to the Google DNS...

    The 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 ones ping at 17ms - who owns those?

    Is this going to be too slow, or is that okay?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    2,129
    4.0.0.0/8 is owned by Level3.
    They were old GTE public DNS servers.

    The speed of light in fiber is 200 x 10^6 m/s (200k km/s). That means the latency of an optical signal traveling in a fiber-optic cable is 5 microsec per kilometer. Plus the overhead for signaling, encapsulation and hardware speeds on each end.

    At those ranges, they are nowhere close to your location, but, if you don't have local public resolvers, the 4.2.2.12 resolvers would be better...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto / New York
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by iptelligent View Post
    4.0.0.0/8 is owned by Level3.
    They were old GTE public DNS servers.

    The speed of light in fiber is 200 x 10^6 m/s (200k km/s). That means the latency of an optical signal traveling in a fiber-optic cable is 5 microsec per kilometer. Plus the overhead for signaling, encapsulation and hardware speeds on each end.

    At those ranges, they are nowhere close to your location, but, if you don't have local public resolvers, the 4.2.2.12 resolvers would be better...
    Ok thanks. Last question, kinda noobish, but what do these resolvers actually impact on the server? Obviously I'm not using my server for web browsing websites, so I would imagine this will impact some applications on the servers ability to resolve DNS queries. It's not a "huge" deal, am I right? Or way off?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    2,129
    If your server is a mail server, it wont be able to deliver emails. It wont be able to use its auto-update functions (being your package manager in *nix or Windows Update on windows). It wont be able to resolve reverse DNS queries for people who connect at it (if you set some kind of filter on the webserver based on the hostname of the machine that is connecting to you).

  10. #10
    You could run your own DNS server and make sure it's only accessible to you since it's doing open recursion. I haven't had much trouble with 4.2.2.2 personally.
    ActiveHost Corporation - Hyper-V, New York Co-location, VPS, Dedicated & Shared Hosting
    Fully Supporting: Windows 2008, ASP.NET 3.5, SQL 2008, Silverlight 3
    14 Years in Business with our own multi-million dollar data center
    www.activehost.comsales@activehost.com
    1-888-500-6799

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    168
    Open DNS is a good one too...

    208.67.222.222
    208.67.220.220

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    388
    Google's DNS servers are multicast, so they should always give you good latency. I've had no problem using them ever.

    The guy above is right about reverse DNS though, all providers should provide this.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    33
    Google works great for me

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rotterdam,The Netherlands
    Posts
    8
    ehm, you have your own server? Install DNS server software on it (like Bind) and use your localhost 127.0.0.1 as resolver!

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlas Global View Post
    Open DNS is a good one too...
    OpenDNS also has the benefit of allowing you to do an immediate cache update instead of having to wait for the TTL to expire.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Rotterdam,The Netherlands
    Posts
    8

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve_P View Post
    OpenDNS also has the benefit of allowing you to do an immediate cache update instead of having to wait for the TTL to expire.
    OpenDNS is intended for workstations with users browsing the web. It redirects non-existent domain names to a landing zone instead of sending NXDOMAIN responses as required per RFC.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by klaver View Post
    OpenDNS is intended for workstations with users browsing the web. It redirects non-existent domain names to a landing zone instead of sending NXDOMAIN responses as required per RFC.
    Fortunately, the NXDOMAIN redirect is configurable and can easily be turned off.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    402
    I would never trust OpenDNS with my server DNS. If you need something to use, try the previously mentioned Level3 servers.

    OpenDNS hijacks Google among other weird things. It's not meant to be used in the server environment.
    iCall Carrier Services - Carrier-grade VoIP services from a licensed CLEC - http://carriers.icall.com
    Domestic termination and origination, toll-free origination, A-Z International termination, dedicated servers, and colocation in our wholly-owned datacenter
    Real-time ordering via our control panel or XML-based API with over 20,000 numbers in stock

  19. #19
    Google Dns apparently has more servers than OpenDns and they both use anycast (not multicast). On the other hand Google Dns is just basic dns caching while OpenDns offers some other cool features.

    However all dns caching services such as these suffer from one major drawback: they ruin dns balancing. In other words, if you visit a site that does load balancing you will probably not get to the server that is nearest to you.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by rezilient View Post
    About 25ms to the Google DNS...

    The 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 ones ping at 17ms - who owns those?

    Is this going to be too slow, or is that okay?
    Stupid question- just to be sure, you are pinging these IP's from your colo network and not your office/home connection, right?

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by linuxissues View Post
    Not too common, but not uncommon either. use 8.8.8.8, 8.8.4.4, 4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2, opendns resolvers etc etc, i'm sure others will have more suggestions.

    Google also have phone support
    http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/using.html
    Over the last several weeks we have had issues with 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.1. As soon as we switched to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 the issues went away. Since it was over several weeks we thought it had something to do with the servers or traffic routing.

    My suggestion would be to use Google’s solution.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto / New York
    Posts
    163
    Quote Originally Posted by ReadyRick View Post
    Stupid question- just to be sure, you are pinging these IP's from your colo network and not your office/home connection, right?
    lol, yes...

    I have been using Google DNS for the past week, no problems so far!

  23. Newsletters

    Subscribe Now & Get The WHT Quick Start Guide!

Similar Threads

  1. need test dns lookups from around the world
    By plumsauce in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 06:03 PM
  2. Slow YUM and DNS lookups?
    By FrozenWire in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 10:14 PM
  3. slow dns lookups
    By aww in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-23-2007, 03:25 AM
  4. DNS Lookups Failing Suddenly - Please Help
    By Mitsurugi in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-14-2005, 11:53 AM
  5. DNS lookups
    By gagsplus in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-13-2002, 07:14 PM

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •