I've heard that hosting your site with similar company you have registered your domain with is an awful idea. Is correct and how can this be?

Lots of people believe this can be a bad idea becuase you are "putting all of your eggs in a single basket". It's known for any host to seal lower all of a sudden, as well as for previous clients to possess a very hard time restoring charge of their domain names. This may also be more difficult as you may aspire to transfer your domain from a number who does not wish to lose your buissness.

One more reason that is applicable oftentimes is the fact that a lot of companies give a single service well, and anything else is mediocre. If you are using a business that's mainly a website registrar for the domain along with a company that's mainly a host company for the website hosting the help you receive could be of the overall greater quality.

Since it is not their core competency. You will find companies devoted to hosting which are possibly less expensive, with better service selection and customer support.

It isn't always so, however they often attract individuals who've no clue how you can manage their very own website and who can not be bothered to locate better. Essentially, their feature is the fact that it is not difficult, not too it is good.

Speaking from my connection with getting arranged hosting and domain registration for 100s of websites: it's generally smart to keep domain and hosting separate.

Domain registrar hosts might work for really low finish sites, but are generally a joke if this involves managing a real site. Diet program my clients have discovered this the painfully costly way, after insisting on bundled up hosting that included a website they registered before we met.

For instance, Google around the worries when utilizing Go Dad to host ASP.Internet AJAX applications.

At the same time, having faith in your domain title to some host is really a leap of belief which makes no sense to consider. To a lot of hosts fold, departing your domain registered within their title and locked, or are simply plain less than professional about moving the domain should you split up.

Your domain title is the brand. You are able to replace a unsuccessful host in 24-96 hrs of DNS propagation, but when you lose your domain then you definitely just lost your research traffic, back links, customers with bookmarks, etc.

Anybody who informs you it's wise to mix these types of services is either speaking from deficiencies in experience or continues to be extremely lucky.

Getting hosting and domain in the same provider isn't a bad idea. Pretty good whatsoever. Actually, couple of of my buddies have that setup for a long time with no problems.

IMHO, it may simply be much better than hosting it individually, since DNS changes are often visible instantly on the internet server machine too (because it usually uses exactly the same DNS).

There is not really worthwhile reason behind the tales you've heard - many registrars have perfectly competent hosting sides, effective website hosts purchasing registrars (and the other way around) aren't that uncommon.

A few of the scare tales might have emanated from the nightmare scenario whereby your registrar (and host's..) building fills up, after which you might lose your initial dns and your server, preventing you against pointing your secondary dns in internet marketing, as you may when the hosing was elsewhere. But this kind of situation could be quite rare, and avoidable depending by yourself system redundancies.

So, in a nutshell, no, I not convinced to become correct!

The explanation I have heard is you do not want your internet site and domain records located within the same data center (the organization supplying the help is less relevant). This way, when the data center suffers an extended outage, you've other available choices like redeploying your website to a different host company and altering the DNS records.

Result in the choices individually. In case your selected host is actually just like your selected registrar, so whether it is, but you ought to be picking the best possible host and also the best possible host. ("best" being determined any way you like - cost, value, features, whatever)

I have discovered that they are rarely exactly the same. I host with Slicehost (plus some MediaTemple) and EasyDNS handles my domain names. I selected each individually simply because they best fit me. The two offers the other service, which hasn't been an problem.