[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?


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


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. 



Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk

More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list