WINS vs. DNS

[blues008]

Trying to understand the difference between WINS and DNS. They both seem to deal with name resolution, and it seems that WINS is dynamic whereas DNS is a database.

Why would one choose to use a WINS server over a DNS server and vice-versa?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Agamar]

In a Windows NT 4.0 / Win95-98 environment, you had to have WINS for name resolution. With Win2k / XP, you can use a DNS server for your resolution. WINS will cause a small amount of overhead on your network that you will not get with DNS. DNS is a "cleaner" solution, and is dynamic with a Win2k domain. You will still need WINS if any users log in to a NT 4.0 server though. Linux and Unix do not use WINS, they only use DNS.

 

[Nothinman]

Linux and Unix do not use WINS, they only use DNS.

That is not true. Any unix that can run samba and has a proper NSS system can have winbindd installed to do WINS for name resolution and query a domain or AD for user/group information.

But generally WINS sucks, Microsoft dropped it in favor of DNS for AD and WINS should only be used in situations where legacy Windows systems need supported.

 

[blues008]

Why does WINS suck?

The book I'm trying to make sense of states: " The most obvious benefit of using WINS is that it reduces broadcast traffic on the network."

 

[Nothinman]

There's no access control that I know of, so any client can update WINS records however it wants. And it was designed for Windows (that's what the W stands for) so there's a lot of crap in there that has no relevance with the Internet. The only reason it reduces broadcast traffic is because that's the old way Windows network browsing was handled, so it was a step forward in that regard, but it was a very small one.

 

[Rogue]

Originally posted by: blues008
Why does WINS suck?

The book I'm trying to make sense of states: " The most obvious benefit of using WINS is that it reduces broadcast traffic on the network."

You will understand when you have several thousand client PCs updating their records in the database it maintains and it gets corrupted time and time and time again. Compare that to DNS which basically serves as the backbone of the internet naming structure and you'll see why even Microsoft chose DNS.

 

[spidey07]

wins - netbios naming server. It does a whole lot more than just name to ip address mappings.

it maintains browse lists, master browsers, domain list, lists of services (there are a bunch of services that use netbios to advertise their availibility)

so without going into a huge post the two are very different.

As always MS has bastardized both netbios naming and DNS to serve their own needs so think very carefully about what you use and how depending on the environment.

-edit- WINS is actually a database, where as DNS is nothing more than a flat text file. Both are dynamic.

 

[blues008]

Why does WINS get corrupted so easily compared to DNS? Is a flat file harder to corrupt?

Any can you give me any examples of what services WINS is used for?

Thanks!

 

[stash]

You guys have all missed the most important difference between WINS and DNS. WINS is a flat namespace and DNS is hierarchical. A flat namespace means you can only use each computer name once on the network, where with DNS, you can use the same hostname many times (which is one reason why DNS is used for the Internet).

I wouldn't say that MS DNS is bastardized. MS DNS is fully RFC compliant and the developers take that very seriously. If you find something in MS DNS that is not RFC compliant, report it to Microsoft.

 

[spidey07]

I'd say netbios naming has very limited hiearchy (domain/computer)

but for sure now where near what DNS can accomplish, I mean it runs the entire freakin intarweb.

😉

 

[kdubster]

Originally posted by: blues008
Why does WINS suck?

The book I'm trying to make sense of states: " The most obvious benefit of using WINS is that it reduces broadcast traffic on the network."

I've always used WINS on my networks to reduce broadcast traffic - I don't like the fact that 250 computers "idling" are eating up to 10% of my total internal bandwidth. If you are running a smaller network (less than 25 computers) - don't bother with WINS.

Even though I am running a pure Windows XP/2003 network, if you have BOTH primary and secondary WINS servers set (WINS node type 0x2 - MS-DHCP option 46 aka 'P' node (point-to-point) (requires two WINS servers) insead of using 0x1 (broadcast) or 0x4 (mixed - broadcast then use server) or 0x8 (hybrid - use server then broadcast)), when Windows tries to resolve a name (keep in mind I am talking about internal network traffic - not the internet) it will ask the primary server, if the name dosn't exist on that server, it will ask the secondary server. If the name dosn't exist on the second server, the resolution will fail instantly. This is a major improvement over computers "stalling" (waiting for timeout) trying to broadcast to find another local computer. (Hint: If you only have one WINS server, give it two IP addresses and have your DHCP server give all of your clients both IPs as the WINS servers)

The only bennifit I have is to kill broadcast taffic (which can be a lot if you have a bunch of computers) and make network browsing instant. WINS servers do have automatic consistancy checks to try to detect and fix any problems that may occour - if you're worried you can easially increase this interval.

I've never heard of anyone complaning that WINS reduced network performance, so you might want to benchmark your network both running with and without it.

 

[Nothinman]

-edit- WINS is actually a database, where as DNS is nothing more than a flat text file. Both are dynamic.

DNS can be in a database, it's just that most people use BIND which uses text files since it's written for unix. I would bet that MS DNS' server used a binary database file.

 

[Garion]

A couple of things to add here..

1: WINS and DNS both have similar functionality with Active Directory. DNS can now be dynamically updated and contains all the information about the domain, etc., just like WINS.

2: WINS is primarily built for NT4 domain registration of MS computers. It's still in Win2K/2K3, but Active Directory with DDNS is now the preferred solution, so far as I'm aware.

WINS is a quick. simple service. Turn it on, point your clients and servers at it, and you're done. It's great for small networks. DNS (and Dynamic DNS, DDNS) is better for large networks and much more scaleable and efficient. However, you need to take some more steps. For example, you probably need Internet resolution at the same time. Windows PC's can only use one active DNS server at a time, so you'd need to make your domain controllers forward requests to the Internet. Doable, just one more thing to add to their load.

- G

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Garion
A couple of things to add here..

1: WINS and DNS both have similar functionality with Active Directory. DNS can now be dynamically updated and contains all the information about the domain, etc., just like WINS.

2: WINS is primarily built for NT4 domain registration of MS computers. It's still in Win2K/2K3, but Active Directory with DDNS is now the preferred solution, so far as I'm aware.

WINS is a quick. simple service. Turn it on, point your clients and servers at it, and you're done. It's great for small networks. DNS (and Dynamic DNS, DDNS) is better for large networks and much more scaleable and efficient. However, you need to take some more steps. For example, you probably need Internet resolution at the same time. Windows PC's can only use one active DNS server at a time, so you'd need to make your domain controllers forward requests to the Internet. Doable, just one more thing to add to their load.

- G

heh, they're not forwarders...they're cachers.

geez Garion.

Nice to have you back in the forum BTW.
😉

 

[Garion]

Details, details... I've always setup caching DNS servers to query directly against the root servers. Whenever I build AD/Windows DNS servers, I just aim 'em at my upstream ISP server using forwarding for their non-local resolution.

Was gone on vacation for a couple of weeks, which is why I haven't been posting as much recently. Had fun, relaxed, dealt with utter chaos. Nice to be back at my nice, relaxing job.

- G