[Dnsmasq-discuss] Implications of raising dns-forward-max

[Eric Fahlgren]

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:52 AM Buck Horn <buckhorn at weibsvolk.org> wrote:

> Blindly increasing dns-forward-max without having analysed the actual
> issue does not seem to recommend itself as the best option available to
> me, even if it would turn out that actual resource impacts are minor.
>
> Stopping or unconfiguring the DNS loop or switching to more reliable
> upstreams would seem more adequate measures to address the warning.
>
> If you have actively been involved in investigating such an issue, it
> may be worth verifying those causes, if only to preclude them. ;)
>

Hi Buck,

Thanks a bunch for the possible causes.  As you could probably tell from my
"assuming", I have not done any root cause investigation, all the reports
are just anecdotal "I saw this, then did that, and the issue went away..."
In some of the posts, it has been suggested that the installation default
be raised to 500 based on these reports, because "why not?" and "it looks
like it fixes something?"

So, at this point I'm still in tentative data collection phase and armed
with your suggested avenues of investigation, I'll see if I can get someone
to reproduce the problem and find the real root issue.

Thanks again,
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20230629/291c5d76/attachment.htm>