Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I would like to start working with a local DNS server in my production. right now instead of working with DNS I'm working with IP Addresses.

I would like to know what is the effect of working with DNS Server instead of IP Addresses. can it cause a real Overhead in my network?

which DNS server do you most recommend to work on Centos Linux?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by MDMarra, Hyppy, Scott Pack, Lucas Kauffman, Ladadadada Aug 22 '12 at 17:10

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Using DNS in a local network will usually not create any noticeable overhead, as long as you allow for a TTL greater than zero. This will mean that the clients cache the entry and don't ask again for the duration of the TTL. If your entries are long-lived, using a TTL of one day (86400) is not uncommon.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for your answer!! what if I would like to use ttl of 1 hour. I need it for DRP in case on of myservers goes down then I will change the DNS. is that too much? – edotan Mar 8 '12 at 14:17
Well, I usually use 300 seconds and don't have any problems. Even when I had a often-used system where I accidentally left the TTL at 0, I didn't noticed any real impact. – Sven Mar 8 '12 at 14:55
Thanks aagin!! do you know if there are DNS applications that can do fail over. (something like GEO DNS). I would like to use one in case I have a server Down. – edotan Mar 8 '12 at 15:03
None of this is related to DNS functionality. DNS is redundant by design, but you need to understand how to use it properly. – adaptr Mar 8 '12 at 15:15
@adaptr: DNS is not redundant by design, it just makes it pretty easy to become redundant. If for some reason, you run only one DNS server for a zone, private or public, redundancy is gone and your DNS goes down with the single server. – Sven Mar 8 '12 at 20:18

As Sven said, operating your own DNS server shouldn't really have appreciable overhead (In fact you'll probably find slightly less external network traffic if you also set the DNS server up to be a caching resolver -- Looking up can be served from the cache for as long as the TTL says the entry is valid.

In short, drawbacks: Almost none (you have a DNS server to manage now, but that's not really hard).
Benefits: Almost infinite (using hostnames instead of IPs? SO much better!)

Software-wise I would recommend BIND, which should come installed by default on CentOS (and if not, it's definitely available in the package repo). It is the reference implementation of a DNS server, superbly documented and well understood by pretty much everyone.

I would also give you my standard recommendation for anyone setting up DNS anywhere: Buy and read a copy of DNS and BIND. Even if you're not using BIND the chapters on DNS are important to read and understand.
This book will help keep you from making disruptive mistakes, and the knowledge you gain by reading it will help you fix any mistakes you do make quickly.

share|improve this answer
Thanks a lot!!! – edotan Mar 8 '12 at 20:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.