<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>It is true that you do not know what levels of fault tolerance any company provide unless you do your due diligence.<span><br>But compared to someone running DNS on a cheap dedicated server with unknown administration, disaster recovery and DNS skills, the less risky option is with the commercial provider.<br><br></span>Cheers,<br>--Neil.<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><b>From: </b>"- Tethys" <tethys@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Greater London Linux User Group" <gllug@gllug.org.uk><br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, 17 March, 2011 12:00:59 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gllug] VPS, MX records and Virtualmin<br><br>On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Neil Macvicar <neilm@kernelspace.co.uk> wrote:<br><br>> You'd be better off using a registrars DNS system - more fault tolerant.<br><br>That's not necessarily good advice. My nameservers are hosted with<br>different companies in different datacentres using different upstream<br>providers. Although you'd like to think that anyone providing DNS<br>commercially would provide similar levels of fault tolerance, in my<br>experience it tends not to be true as often as you'd hope. By doing it<br>myself, I *know* how fault tolerant it is.<br><br>Tet<br><br>-- <br>"Any sufficiently advanced financial instrument is indistinguishable from fraud"<br>--<br>Gllug mailing list - Gllug@gllug.org.uk<br>http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug<br></div><br></div></body></html>