On 11/03/2021 11:19, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Hi Simon and Nicholas,
>
> I think dnsmasq relying on driving retries by clients is not great
> design. When clients starts bombarding dnsmasq with requests, dnsmasq
> will in turn bombard upstream server(s) too. It seems unnecessary to me.
> And even
Hey all,
I support Petr's idea of putting the responsibility for upstream
retires into dnsmasq's hands. All of his points seem very valid.
I also agree about the necessity of a lower limit to prevent users from
configuring dnsmasq for retrying every, say, 5 msec (unless they really
want it and
On 22/02/2021 23:04, Nicholas Mu wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> The commit fixes all the issues we were seeing. Thanks for getting the
> fix out so quickly.
Excellent. I just pushed my tree, which has a further small update to
this. I've been dogfooding it here and all seems well.
>
> I had one
Hi Simon,
The commit fixes all the issues we were seeing. Thanks for getting the fix
out so quickly.
I had one follow up. So now it seems that for all clients retries will use
the same SP/QID. Would it be possible to have a way/config to vary SP on
retries or are we stuck with a single SP due to
On 16/02/2021 00:42, Nicholas Mu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed a low level increase in DNS errors after upgrading to 2.84.
> After doing some packet diving, it seems that retries behave differently
> in the new version. For my testing, I'm using dnspython but I believe
> this issue would affect any
