Ah, makes sense - Apologies, I misunderstood/misread the original email as we 
are removing HostDB altogether. Looks like the proposal is to only remove the 
persistence of HostDB. Agree that there is very little value with HostDB 
persistence today and you are correct that we are not leveraging the 
persistence either :) 
Thanks for the clarification!
- Sudheer
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 09:14:28 AM PDT, Leif Hedstrom 
<zw...@apache.org> wrote:  
 
 

> On Sep 5, 2023, at 9:53 AM, Sudheer Vinukonda 
> <sudheervinuko...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> To minimize the impact on the existing users, should we keep the feature (in 
> the same disabled state) until an alternative is added/supported?


No :). There won’t be an alternative added, either we keep what we have, or we 
remove it. If you need an alternative, you should run an external caching 
resolver (which almost certainly, you already are). The use case of a 
persistent HostDB is pretty much pointless today, with fast caching resolvers. 
And, in most cases, during a restart, your cached DNS entries are likely 
already expired anyways.

The whole point of removing this in v10.0 is that it would allow us (with less 
effort) to replace HostDB with something better, without having to wait until 
v11.0.

Cheers,

— Leif

>    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 08:38:03 AM PDT, Leif Hedstrom 
><zw...@apache.org> wrote:  
> 
> I’d like to remove the feature for persistent HostDB storage for ATS v10.0. 
> In ATS v9 we made this disabled by default, and removing this feature 
> completely would make it easier in the future to improve and replace HostDB 
> itself with better containers. And, persistent DNS caching is better done 
> with a local caching resolver.
> 
> This would eliminate the following records settings:
> 
>    proxy.config.cache.hostdb.sync_frequency
>    proxy.config.hostdb.host_file.path
>    proxy.config.hostdb.host_file.interval
> 
> 
> I’ve prepared a PR with these changes:
> 
>    https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/10368
> 
> 
> Let us know if you have concerns about eliminating this feature. Lazy 
> consensus.
> 
> — Leif
> 

  

Reply via email to