Linux vs Windows Server bpiela 5/4/2007 7:08:01 PM Hello all, I have a SMB client that is doing web hosting. They have 2 RedHat Linux servers as their main DNS servers in a Primary-Primary configuration. Problem is the users are prone to make errors in the DNS config files because they just can't seem to get used to using vi as their text editor. Obviously, this is no good. Since the end user is used to the Windows world, I was thinking that they might want to consider installing a couple of low end 1U servers running Windows 2003 for their external DNS servers. Am I moving in the wrong direction with this recommendation or is this something that is done regularly? Thanks.

Re: Linux vs Windows Server "Jeremy" <jeremy[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> 5/5/2007 12:53:03 AM I've been using Windows DNS servers for external DNS for ages and never had any issues. "bpiela" <bpiela[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:5EBFAA3F-1330-46B2-A0E1-4D5EBB56DB47[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > Hello all, > > I have a SMB client that is doing web hosting. They have 2 RedHat Linux > servers as their main DNS servers in a Primary-Primary configuration. > Problem is the users are prone to make errors in the DNS config files > because > they just can't seem to get used to using vi as their text editor. > Obviously, this is no good. Since the end user is used to the Windows > world, > I was thinking that they might want to consider installing a couple of low > end 1U servers running Windows 2003 for their external DNS servers. Am I > moving in the wrong direction with this recommendation or is this > something > that is done regularly? > > Thanks.

Re: Linux vs Windows Server "Kerry Brown" <kerry[ at ]kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> 5/5/2007 2:20:37 PM Why not use a Linux DNS management GUI? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=linux+dns+management&btnG=Search&meta= I don't see any reason not to use Windows Server 2003 but you've already got an infrastructure that works. You just need a better way to manage it. -- Kerry Brown Microsoft MVP - Shell/User http://www.vistahelp.ca "bpiela" <bpiela[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:5EBFAA3F-1330-46B2-A0E1-4D5EBB56DB47[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > Hello all, > > I have a SMB client that is doing web hosting. They have 2 RedHat Linux > servers as their main DNS servers in a Primary-Primary configuration. > Problem is the users are prone to make errors in the DNS config files > because > they just can't seem to get used to using vi as their text editor. > Obviously, this is no good. Since the end user is used to the Windows > world, > I was thinking that they might want to consider installing a couple of low > end 1U servers running Windows 2003 for their external DNS servers. Am I > moving in the wrong direction with this recommendation or is this > something > that is done regularly? > > Thanks.

Re: Linux vs Windows Server "Herb Martin" <news[ at ]learnquick.com> 5/5/2007 9:09:29 PM "bpiela" <bpiela[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:5EBFAA3F-1330-46B2-A0E1-4D5EBB56DB47[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > Hello all, > > I have a SMB client that is doing web hosting. They have 2 RedHat Linux > servers as their main DNS servers in a Primary-Primary configuration. What does Primary-Primary Configuration mean? If you have two primaries for the SAME zone then this is practical always wrong for external DNS on the Web, unless you mean that one is used internally in a Shadow DNS configuration > Problem is the users are prone to make errors in the DNS config files > because > they just can't seem to get used to using vi as their text editor. Get them a better text editor or a GUI, or even a web page that admins this. Truth is that almost ALL "Small companies" should move their DNS (back) to the REGISTRAR and not on the ISP or maintain it themselves. The Registrars are already providing a nice web "GUI" in most cases. > Obviously, this is no good. Since the end user is used to the Windows > world, > I was thinking that they might want to consider installing a couple of low > end 1U servers running Windows 2003 for their external DNS servers. Am I > moving in the wrong direction with this recommendation or is this > something > that is done regularly? Nothing wrong with this but the typical case is that the DNS server admin is going to be given FULL ADMIN to the server (if that is what you do already then that isn't terrible), but you can if you know how give them merely Admin rights to the DNS Server itself. Also there may be an issue if these DNS servers will be shared by multiple admins since such permissions are NOT on a "per zone" basis but given for the ENTIRE DNS (or server), i.e., one admin could change other peoples DNS if they are on the same server. Putting public DNS back at the Registrar is practically always the "right thing to do" -- Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP http://www.LearnQuick.Com (phone on web site)