Interest in external DNS cluster mastered by DirectAdmin

buddyns

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
3
Hello everyone,

We are considering making BuddyNS integrated into DirectAdmin, so that you can use BuddyNS's outstanding infrastructure to ensure uptime yet keep DA as single point of control.

Any interest in such service?

If so, what figures do you have roughly in terms of number of zones, number of records and volume of traffic?

cheers
michele
 
No interest at all.
Company's who have this on their website:
"Your browser does not support BuddyNS !" when using Internet Explorer 8, I won't take serious as a business at all.
 
Any interest in such service?
Probably not from me; I had Master2Slave DNS replicator for BIND built as a free open source solution for slave DNS which anyone can use on any server to slave their DNS. It's as fast to resolve as the server hardware, but it can take up to 20 minutes to propagate DNS zone additions and deletions.

DirectAdmin's Multi-server option is faster to replicate, also as fast as the underlying server, but requires a DirectAdmin license on each slave server.

Jeff
 
I'm also happy with my own secondary powerdns. Your product looks fine, and the lack of support for IE8 is no problem for me at all. Somewhere after IE7 I've never used IE anymore as default browser. Also the more websites not supporting older browsers, the more people are forced to upgrade. Its nice to make a stand. However drawing the line at this moment under IE9 is tricky; as Windows XP cannot have it.

Anyway, about the product; I'm not sure if this is the right place to find out if DA customers in general would be interested; I think the most returning users are above experienced and like to have as much control as they can, as you can see by the people who have replied so far. Others come only when they have a problem, and there's a group of lurkers, of which I don't know how many. The right place to find this out I wouldn't know, then again I don't have such a product to sell. :)

I however can imagine that if its very easy for people to use, so a plugin within DA will take care of everything, people might go for it. It is recommended to use geographically separated nameservers, and there's currently no very easy/cheap (1 license) solution to get that happening, so there might be an audience.
 
Thanks for your replies. Let me refine on the main cases we have in mind for such option:

  • users with only one server available; BuddyNS gives them the additional DNS servers required for registering any Domain name.
  • users with one DirectAdmin license; BuddyNS gives them DNS redundancy without having to buy additional DirectAdmin licenses.
  • users without IPv6 infrastructure interested in IPv6 support; BuddyNS extends their DNS with IPv6 without additional setups or infrastructure.
  • users more sensitive to DNS security issues; they can present BuddyNS as servers their only NS, keep their DirectAdmin as "stealth master", and avoid the customary BIND security upgrades.
There's more cases, like folks with often-changed zones or folks who want to profile their DNS traffic, but they are more niche.

If you belong to any of those, we'd love to read you here!

@Arieh: thanks for your in-depth comment. We agree on most.

@nobaloney: we are trying to sensitize on how important synchronization is. 20 minutes is already better than average, but 20' downtime in www or mail are hard to swallow.

@richard: we can put our resources on chasing IE bugs or improving our infrastructure. IE is 8% on BuddyNS, and standard-compliant browsers are 20sec away, so we chose the latter.
 
[*]users without IPv6 infrastructure interested in IPv6 support; BuddyNS extends their DNS with IPv6 without additional setups or infrastructure.

I'm not so sure how important IPv6 is if you can't serve it, but I suppose it might be for your clients who need IPv6 nameserver support and have zone files with IPv6 records for services and subdomains hosted elsewhere.
@nobaloney: we are trying to sensitize on how important synchronization is. 20 minutes is already better than average, but 20' downtime in www or mail are hard to swallow.
We chose intermittent updates rather than realtime updates for simplicity and efficiency; we don't recommend our solution for anyone needing to support multi-server uptime, but that's not really DirectAdmin's niche. We can and often do push immediate updates, but most zones include TTL well over 20 minutes.

If I didn't say it before, thanks for the offering; I'm not attempting to denegrate it any way.

Jeff
 
No interest at all.
Company's who have this on their website:
"Your browser does not support BuddyNS !" when using Internet Explorer 8, I won't take serious as a business at all.

Why would you use Internet Explorer at all... thats what I dont take serious.
 
Give me a good reason why not to use internet Explorer, they are comparible. And it's not seldom that Firefox has more vulnarabilities over a year then Internet Explorer.

I'm sorry, I had a higher opinion of you Scsi then to be a IE basher without argumentation.
Have a look at this and see that Firefox is worse, even with public exploits. Only IE and Chrome were highest with 0-day leaks.
But by severity it beats Firefox and Chrome easily. It's not that bad as people think. Yes it was years ago that it was unsafe and even then it still often beatet Firefox. So if you thing Firefox is better, then dream on, there is not that big a difference.
http://www.gfi.com/blog/research-web-browser-war-security-battle-in-2011/
Mind you... this was last year, so not even that long ago.

I don't like IE either, but I don't talk bashing nonsense en don't block it from a professional website, because that is not a professional thing to do.

Sorry for the off-topic reply.
 
I don't like IE either, but I don't talk bashing nonsense en don't block it from a professional website, because that is not a professional thing to do.

We don't care about the who's-got-more-bugs war, and we don't bash a thing. We simply state the fact that "your browser" (no mention to IE) does not support some of the standards-compatible features of the website, so we recommend alternatives.

Our website is semantic HTML5, and HTML5 support in IE is missing in older IEs and still poor in new ones. We saw perfectly crafted parts being rendered wrongly in IE. We are a data-driven start-up, so we looked at the numbers and decided IE wasn't worth going after. We were aware this would cost us some religious users, but we favored allocating that time to infrastructure and new features.

We have nothing against Microsoft or IE. Our position might come across as strong. We see it as a way to promote standards-compatibility and stay lean. If you prefer the browser to the website, you are welcome to go with competitors.
 
We simply state the fact that "your browser"
In fact my reaction was to scsi.

But only this simple statement, says far more then you might wish and by making such statement, you -are- participating in browser wars.

Fact is that the browser I use (being IE8) is still the most or 2nd most browser used in the world!!! And that's one of the several you are not accepting as should be. Which could give customers using the browser giving the feeling they are not accepted either.
I wonder how long you are in business (is it 2 years?) that you do not understand this.

I understand that you also block some poor others, wich also some customers are happy to use (unfortunately). But it's not your task to decide which browser customers should use. You're not in children garden, you're in business.

You can explect more professional company's to take that same opinion as I do. And you won't make money by referring to the competitors, which is also an arrogant thing to do. The "we do it like this, if you don't like it, go somewhere else" way of doing business is irritating more customers then you think (especially if company's are told their browser is no good). Customers mostly won't take this from a bigger company and especially not from a small company as yours seems to be.

But hey... it's your choice as you say.
And I'm entitled to the opinion that it's very unprofessional.
I hope you will see that some time. I have been there, done that... it's no good and won't bring anything (rather bring less). There are better ways.
 
But only this simple statement, says far more then you might wish and by making such statement, you -are- participating in browser wars.
This is not a discussion of browsers. Please let's refrain from off-topic posts.

Thanks.

Jeff
 
I'm sorry but I was not going off-topic, I was just answering to his and scsi's answer to my statement of being not interested (which was maybe a bit rough on the edge, but on-topic). This answer made me go off-topic with them, you are correct there, sorry.
I agree with the thought buddyns has about standards, not with the method used.

I will not reply to this topic anymore, so I won't be off-topic anymore, sorry.
 
Back
Top