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] Reponse time is huge for big payload SRV record on dnsmasq servers

Check all the servers you have configured. If one is not accepting TCP connections, that could delay things whilst the connection attempt times out. If the upstream servers accept TCP connections and reply on them in a timely manner, I don't know what else could be causing the problem. It would

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

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] ubus and metrics

On 26.04.2018 19:03, Simon Kelley wrote: General questions: - Is there any reason to not use the `enum` for definition lists like `LOPT_*`? No strong ones, just habit I guess. Can

[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