Hmmm, you might be right that lookupd does some mtime stuff on the hosts
file. Filesystem cache might be inbetween also.
After rethinking this, I think you're right, and that it is safe to
ignore my "sequential scan" allergy, caused by my database research :)
Michael Watson wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate. lookupd caches hosts data, and
fs_usage doesn't show a hit to /etc/hosts while a browser loads a site
I've never been to before.
I'm sure it reads the hosts file into cache regularly, but I'd be
shocked to find out it did it every time I went to resolve a domain
name, especially without seeing the file access in fs_usage's output.
Anyone got more info on this?
-/-
Mikey-San
"You can't run Microsoft Office on Linux. Some might call this a
feature."
On Jul 25, 2005, at 15:02, Ruurd Koons wrote:
the number of hosts in there, however, *does* matter. The more you
have in there the slower your system becomes on dns lookups, as there
is no index for this file, and a sequential scan is being performed
on it every time you do a dns lookup.
_______________________________________________
Camino mailing list
[email protected]
http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/camino
--
Ruurd - runs Mac OS X 10.4.2, uses Vim
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform 1.4
_______________________________________________
Camino mailing list
[email protected]
http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/camino
