On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:21:31AM +0200, Dominik DL6ER wrote:
> Geert Stappers wrote:
> >  [ ... ] I'm trying to tell that the performance penality that Simon
> >  warns us about, might by canceled by high computing power.
> I agree, but you should probably not be running a caching DNS server
> with hundreds of active clients on a really low-power embedded machine
> like the good old Raspberry Pi in its first version.


> I'm just trying to make clear that removing this artificial limit may
> improve the situation for those on beefier hardware but not impact the
> others as they are responsible for what they set when they decide to
> manually tweak their settings in this regard. It's a value where I think
> the hand-holding dnsmasq is doing for possibly supporting embedded
> devices better is just too much. In the end, Simon has to say if or not
> this artificial clipping can be removed or not. I think yes, because it
> doesn't affect anyone who has not changed the default value and allows
> the others to use any value for cache size them deem right for their
> hardware and application.

I also think that the clipping should be removed.

Resubmitting the patch with a new commit message would be a good thing.
(The original patch commit message would result in an ugly git log
when `git am`, "git apply-mail" was used.)`

I'll follow up this posting with a patch on the manual page.

Geert Stappers
Leven en laten leven

Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to