The reason for the limit is actually performance: there may be plenty of RAM, but the larger the cache is, the slower it is. This is true for reverse (PTR) queries, which are less optimised than normal forward queries.
I accept that the limit may now be too small, but it would be worth doing some measurements of cache performance before raising or removing it. Cheers, Simon. > From: Dominik Derigs <dl...@dl6er.de> > Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 18:44:41 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10,000 for cache size. We should > allow > users to set any (maximum) cache size they like to set. Even embedded > devices > usually ship with at least 1 GB of RAM nowadays so memory shouldn't be an > issue. Furthermore, this clipping is also not documented in the man page. > To: email@example.com > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Derigs <dl...@dl6er.de> > --- > src/option.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/option.c b/src/option.c > index 65df93a..180517a 100644 > --- a/src/option.c > +++ b/src/option.c > @@ -2589,8 +2589,6 @@ static int one_opt(int option, char *arg, char > *errstr, char *gen_err, int comma > > if (size < 0) > size = 0; > - else if (size > 10000) > - size = 10000; > > daemon->cachesize = size; > } > _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss