Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Situation: I have an own network running which entails also a DNS server. I entered it as the preferred lookup server in the DNS settings. So far so good. But now imagine that for some reason my DNS infrastructure is not reachable at some point in time. As a no names can be resolved anymore (no alternative DNS server set ATM), and the client becomes unusable for surfing/working.

Question: What should I enter as the alternative DNS server?

Previously when using the auto-option I assume that windows was deicing which one is the best to use at the moment (couldn't find any info how windows decides). I am aware that there are some tools out that that claim to help to decide which one is the best in the current situation. But given that this client is a laptop and will often (sometimes daily) change its physical and network location, that is impractical.

I read that Google's DNS server ( is said to be a good general choice (and fast thanks to the worldwide coverage and usage of anycast/geocast). Would that be your recommendation?

Or should I even add multiple servers via the "Advanced" button? Would that offer any benefits = would Windows occasionally go through that list and determine which of those is currently the best?

share|improve this question
Recommendation of which DNS server to use is a shopping question and therefore off-topic, and asking for the "best" anything often leads to closure due to "not constructive". Pick one you like and try it. As for the list of DNS's -- It goes through them in order, and only goes to the next if the one before doesn't answer. So if DNS 1 answers but doesn't have the address, the lookup fails; but since the DNS answered at all, it doesn't go to the next DNS in the list. Windows doesn't have any way to determine which is "Best". – Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 Apr 23 '13 at 19:01
Why do you have a DNS or your LAN? If you need to resolve some internal private names adding an external DNS won't help. – Sacha K Apr 23 '13 at 19:03
@user2210761 Yes, of course the additional DNS will not be able to resolve any internal addresses. But if our DNS server is down (and it is the only one listed in the DNS settings), the client cannot even surf anymore / work outside of our internal network. That is what we need an alternative DNS entry for. – Philip Allgaier Apr 23 '13 at 19:07
If you want resilient LAN DNS then you need redundancy -- setup another Internal DNS server on another machine and make it a secondary to the first (or alike) so they stay in synch. :) – Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 Apr 23 '13 at 19:08
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Take as your secondary DNS Server.

Adding multiple servers won't really give you more security in my opinion, google ALWAYS works (and has worked).

share|improve this answer

I havent used them personally, but I hear OpenDNS provides a good, free DNS service.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .