[Dnsmasq-discuss] Any plans on adding ability to store cachetodisk?
rob at zwissler.org
Tue May 15 18:13:18 BST 2012
I can't speak for Simon, but I'm sure he could add this, but he seems to
resist things that don't fit in with the minimalist, simple, low footprint
ethos of DNSMasq, unless there really seems to be a pressing need for them.
I'd imagine people are interested in this so when they are reloading data
it doesn't dump the cache.
The need for this might be largely negated if DNSMasq did have a mechanism
for (this was briefly discussed a while
a "look-aside server".
I'm writing a kind of proof-of-concept Perl + SQLite server side of this,
which might not be ideal for a embedded installations, but would allow for
testing, and maybe we can convince Simon to implement the look-aside
server, which would then open the door for dynamic data storage without
adding much to the footprint or complexity of DNSMasq.
If DNSMasq could communicate via named pipes, perhaps even with a
simplified interface (like CSV instead of full on DNS protocol), that could
make writing backends for this incredibly simple and potentially very
powerful (regex modifications, SQLite or MySQL backends, etc). I'd imagine
that could be done in a backwards compatible way, without adding much to
DNSMasq, just a server declaration like
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Timothy Madden <terminatorul at gmail.com>
> On 12/03/2006 12:40 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> gypsy wrote:
>>> If Simon is offended, then so be it, but I mean no offense. I just fail
>>> to see how a save to/restore from disk could bloat the code;
>>> save/restore IS a basic feature. TTL will expire out any crap
>> I'm not at all offended. In my role as dnsmasq-benevolent-dictator I get
>> to have opinions about what's good to do in dnsmasq and what's not. I
>> also get to hear arguments about what's good to do in dnsmasq and what's
>> not, and sometimes I even change my mind (I did about the DHCP
>> lease-change script, for instance, and forcing an address change when an
>> already-configured host gets a static DHCP address).
>> I guess if a I make too many bad calls, there's nothing to stop a fork:
>> that's the Free Software way.
>> I just happen not to have changed my mind about this. I'm still happy to
>> hear arguments about it.
> I also find this a basic feature that should not be missing from dnsmasq.
> there still no way to do this ?
> Thank you,
> Timothy Madden
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss