Someone recently recommended that rather than run my own nameservers on my dedicated, that I use a service like dyndns.org. Their theory was that this would free up cpu on my dedicated. I'm all for freeing up CPU, but is the difference going to be negligible? Looking at my CPU logs I can't see the name servers breaking 1% cpu. Perhaps there are other considerations?
If you only have 1 dedicated server then running your DNS on the server means that when the server goes down so does your DNS. It's better to have your DNS operate over at least 2 different servers. In terms of server resources, DNS has little impact on a servers performance. I can't say what the impact of the system you use is, but we use SimpleDNS for our Windows servers and DNS hardly registers on the servers at all except for diskspace where the DNS log files are over 2GB per day on the first 2 DNS servers and about 150MB on the 3rd DNS server. I'd say there are more resource intensive operations that I'd move from a server first before I thought about moving the DNS service. The only reason I can see for moving DNS off a server is for redundancy purposes, not to save performance.
i dont think DNS uses so much resources maybe you wont even notice a difference in performance after changing the dns server
Try a VPS setup with cpanel dns only installation to serve as primary DNS and use the DNS on your server as failover DNS.