On 2012-03-23 09:47, Lupe Christoph wrote: > You will not save that much memory. IIRC dnsmasq does not do caching > or other memory consuming things.
Not true. dnsmasq by default caches 150 replies. Not sure how it is compiled for OpenWRT. However, assuming it's caching plain text DNS entries that are unusually long, 150 replies x 80 characters = 12K. > You might try to use a different DHCP server on OpenWRT, but I doubt > any will beat dnsmasq for memory efficiency. It's worth a try, though. This is not a perfect test method, but it is indicative. Comparing VmSize in /proc/$PID/status: dnsmasq on OpenWRT, with DNS, 6 leases: 1 MB ISC dhcpd on Ubuntu 10.04, no DNS, 17 leases: 4 MB Even assuming that the number of clients scales linearly with RAM usage, using ISC dhcpd wouldn't be a good replacement for dnsmasq. And it does not scale linearly. A better test would be for me to test ISC dhcpd on OpenWRT, but I'm not going to do that. I suggest you do, if you really want to compare. I believe you are trying to over-optimise, and you're well down the curve of diminishing returns. Regards, Tyler -- "If I had a robohand, I'd totally bling that shit out with neon ground effects and integrated flashlights and bottle openers. My hand would blink '12:00' after a power failure." -- Jamie Zawinski _______________________________________________ openwrt-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-users
