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 deletions(-)
>
> dif
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.
agreed...
[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 int one_opt(int opt
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 se
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
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
devices
usually shi