Greetings.
The dnsmasq documentation stresses that it's a good solution for 'small networks', but how small is small? The overview seems to give as examples home networks, or mentions dnsmasq running in a router (implicitly a SOHO router).
I have what I'd call a medium-sized network of machines to look after, which -- depending on how I/we organise the network -- could represent between 500 and 1000 machines. I'd like to provide DHCP and caching DNS to a good fraction of them, and provide authoritative (intranet) records for perhaps half. Dnsmasq looks like it would be very convenient to use for that, but would those numbers tax dnsmasq unduly?
I would guess that DNS and DHCP wouldn't necessarily imply a huge load on a machine, but I'd guess also that the load would scale roughly with the square of the number of machines being served (or perhaps linearly both with the number of machines being served and with the number of authoritative local records).
The machines are heterogenous in use, as opposed to being a compute farm, or something else which would suggest that cache hits would be unusually common.
The manpage mentions that 'Dnsmasq is capable of handling DNS and DHCP for at least a thousand clients.' That's about the number of clients I'm thinking of, so that's good, but is there a 'with ease' elided there, or a 'without overwhelming pain'? Would I, in short, be storing up trouble for myself?
I couldn't find discussion of this in a quick search of the list archives, but I wasn't really sure what best to search for.
Thanks for any advice. Best wishes, Norman -- Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
