[Dnsmasq-discuss] FW: Cachesize

Petr Mensik pemensik at redhat.com
Mon Apr 10 11:51:16 BST 2017


Hi Nathan.

If you hit a cache limit of 10000 quite often, are you sure dnsmasq is still the best choice for that server? I think dnsmasq focuses on small home routers and end networks. Have you considered other caching resolver, unbound for example? I think if this limit is not enough, maybe your network is not small enough. There is limit for some reason. I hope full cache does not mean recursion will stop working, but I did not validate that assumption.

I think main DNS resolvers of ISP network should use something more heavy than dnsmasq.
How many end hosts are using that server?
Do you require dnsmasq specific features?

Cheers,
Petr

--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemensik at redhat.com  PGP: 65C6C973


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Downes" <nathandownes at hotmail.com>
To: dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:41:24 AM
Subject: [Dnsmasq-discuss] FW: Cachesize



Hi, 



I understand this is hardcoded to a limit of 10000 but we use it for a small ISP network and quite often reach this, is it possible to make it 25000 in next release? Everyone has the choice at loading what to set it to, so I can’t see how this would cause issues. I would prefer to just use available packages than have to compile my own to adjust this and always have to remember the modification. 



Thanks, 



Nathan 

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss



More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list