I look after a good number of domains - 150 to 200.
No matter who the registar I have always pointed the domain’s Nameservers at the server the hosting the website (and often the email). No idea why - just the way I always did it.
Commonly now the email gets hosted seperately from the website and I end up with MX records on a server that no longer hosts the email.
And as periodically I need to move domains from one server to another as they get old and full - I need to move the Namervers.
I 'm thinking its easier to leave the nameservers with the registar and set the A / MX records there.
Assuming hosts and registrars are equally reliable is either approach better than the other?
Leaving the DNS with the domain name registrar is my preference. That way, I can point my domain name anywhere I want without worrying about DNS propagation issues. But looking after a large number of domains, that is going to be a major headache if your servers change IP addresses. Unless your registrar has bulk DNS management allowing you to change entries for multiple domains, you will have to update each and every one individually if your IP address ever changes.
You don’t have to have each server set up with its own nameserver. You can have one server (at least two, preferably) act as the nameserver for all of the domains under your management. And I don’t think it is a good idea for a web server to act as its own nameserver. If the server goes down, both the web server and name server go down. Then you have no flexibility at all.
But looking after a large number of domains, that is going to be a major headache if your servers change IP addresses. Unless your registrar has bulk DNS management allowing you to change entries for multiple domains, you will have to update each and every one individually if your IP address ever changes.
I don’t know if my registrar has bulk update facility but its a good heads up - I’ll ask. Most of my domains are on a couple of dedicated servers - which I hope are unlikely to have their IP changed without some sort of agreement/warning.
And I don’t think it is a good idea for a web server to act as its own nameserver. If the server goes down, both the web server and name server go down. Then you have no flexibility at all.
It’s all about shifting your point of failure wherever it is less likely to fail.
Back in the 90s, self-hosting web and DNS services was common because there wasn’t a lot of redundancy out on the interwebz for hosting and DNS services.
Today with powerful infrastructure, low latency, load balancing, and redundancy of cloud services, self-hosting tends to be the more likely bottleneck and point of failure. So, it’s typically better to host your DNS services with your registrar these days (so long as they’ve proven to provide a reliable service).
