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. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqemail@example.com http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss