Setting up DNS on a Linux Dedicated Server - Part 2

[masterdaweb1]

very nice tutorial



[harisopenfile]

i dont have apply changes button ... :(( @4:43

[SirPsp]

I've done this 3 times before and your video still helped me, thanks.

[fpds12]

Hi, how do i redirect one domain to a folder on the server with BIND? Thanks.

[lolokoperro]

@fpds12 all you have to do is press enter shave your middle finger up your ass and wait 10 min

[fpds12]

@lolokoperro will take in the middle of your ass his asshole.

[NewProductions]

@fpds12 Create an alias and then google apache and subdomains. Hope that helps.

[simpsda]

@fpds12 apache virtual host

[ArthurHenryHeyman]

Well done and thanks.

[robinmitra1]

tried everything dude..still not working :(

[massachusettes3]

is the DNS server running on the same machine as your domain server or is it a separate machine.

[thededicatedserverha]

It doesn't make sense to host a primary and slave zone on the same server. The point of having both is for redundancy, and so you want them on DIFFERENT machines, so if one machine goes down, your DNS won't completely die.

[allwebnow]

dns doesn't work like the way you think it does. If you had ns1 on one server and ns2 on another, it would load whichever nameserver loads fastest. there is no rhyme or reason to which NS will load first or second. So, if you had enough money to afford 2 boxes + realtime sync software ($10000's of $) then you can do what you're proposing. Otherwise, registrars require you to register more than one ns so you need to setup 2 nameservers on the same server.

[thededicatedserverha]

1) I'm not sure why you think you have to pay $10,000s for realtime sync software; that's what zone transfers and ntp are for.  In any case the chances of having a request whose answer will change in increments so frequesnt that you suggest might be necessary is not realistic (especially given a guaranteed minimum 1 second cache time for ANY DNS response)

[thededicatedserverha]

2) I didn't mean to imply that ns1 will always be queried before ns2 (most resolver implementations will query ns1 first, but as you correctly pointed out, that's not guaranteed). The point was to have redundancy (which is why the resolvers will also usually put out queries in pairs, just in case one query times out, as suggested by RFC 1034)

[thededicatedserverha]

3) Putting two nameservers on the SAME machine is completely useless and never a good idea, for the reason I mentioned above. If you have one machine, then use some external DNS host for your backup. They're a dime a dozon, with many perfectly capable multi-homed free solutions out there.

[allwebnow]

You setup 2 nameservers on the server simply because most domain registrars as well as dns standards out there require 2 nameservers setup. So, This is simply a "fast" and inexpensive way to provide the registrar with the 2 nameservers. Also, genuine redundancy is very costly either way you put it. Yes there are free solutions out there, but even those require know how, time and development cost to get it right. This method is a quick, poor-mans server setup and is quite common.

[thededicatedserverha]

If you want the quck'n'easy "poor mans" way, just use your registrar's DNS service. 90% of registrars today give you an extremely decent DNS service included with your domain

[jimmo42]

Five minutes with more or less point-n-click is "know how, time and development cost to get it right"? If you configure one DNS server at your registrar and one with your hoster (two different companies and two different networks) how is that not "genuine redundancy"? My hoster has 5 different internet connections at two different locations. How is that not "genuine redundancy"? It's all included in the price of the hosting services. This is neither expensive nor time consuming.

[thededicatedserverha]

That's genuine redundancy, and is a fine and easy point-n-click method. You can easily set up webmin to be a slave for your hosting provider's DNS setup for that redundancy...

But that's not what we were discussing above.

[aik2ka4]

why not the ns2 ???