Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10, 000 for cache size

OK, I removed the limit, but added a big logged warning if you exceed it Cheers, Simon. On 09/05/18 13:00, Dominik DL6ER wrote: > [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10,000 for cache size > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Derigs > --- >  src/option.c | 2 -- >  1 file changed, 2

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10, 000 for cache size

On 05/08/2018 05:16 PM, Dominik wrote: Hey Simon, removing the upper limit will not change anything except for the few users that have set this value manually to a very large number. However, if they did so they were surely not expecting that dnsmasq could just ignore their setting.

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10, 000 for cache size

[PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10,000 for cache size Signed-off-by: Dominik Derigs ---  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

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10, 000 for cache size

Hey Simon, removing the upper limit will not change anything except for the few users that have set this value manually to a very large number. However, if they did so they were surely not expecting that dnsmasq could just ignore their setting. Personal experience with dnsmasq as a caching DNS

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10, 000 for cache size

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

[Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Remove upper limit of 10, 000 for cache size

From c3fdb31d68d80e08679524ebe02113fe1f11b0b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dominik Derigs 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