The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> SadOldGit wrote:
>
>> ...because all the domains that I deal with are hosted in a proper
>> facility. Why on earth would OP ever want to host *anything* on his own
>> machine? Where I host (for multiple domains, at about $25 per month) has
>> four 155Mbps connections, each with a different supplier - how much
>> would that cost OP?
>>
> DNS servers - name servers - are among the least bandwidth hungry and
> bandwidth intensive servers you can mount. When I ran a hosting service,
> the oldest and slowest machines were relegated to use as name servers.
>

Yes Michael, but you still don't distinguish between DNS servers that
seek an IP address in response to a query, and 'Name servers' that
actually provide the response.

> There are very GOOD reason to have the locally

What are we talking here DNS resolvers or 'Name servers' with MX
records, etc?

Not at all the same thing.

, if you have to do a lot
> of changes to them..like being able to access the machine if it goes
> wrong. Remote versus local hosting is a simple and direct cost benefit
> analysis with low cost per unit bandwidth at the ISP hub site trading
> off against low cost per unit installation and service visit with a
> local server.
> With the bandwidth being so low, it comes out firmly in favour of local.
> However the whole point of a secondary server is to be there if the main
> one fails. Having it on the same machine completely defeats the object.
>