Hi Nathan. If you hit a cache limit of 10000 quite often, are you sure dnsmasq is still the best choice for that server? I think dnsmasq focuses on small home routers and end networks. Have you considered other caching resolver, unbound for example? I think if this limit is not enough, maybe your network is not small enough. There is limit for some reason. I hope full cache does not mean recursion will stop working, but I did not validate that assumption.
I think main DNS resolvers of ISP network should use something more heavy than dnsmasq. How many end hosts are using that server? Do you require dnsmasq specific features? Cheers, Petr -- Petr Menšík Software Engineer Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ email: pemen...@redhat.com PGP: 65C6C973 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Downes" <nathandow...@hotmail.com> To: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:41:24 AM Subject: [Dnsmasq-discuss] FW: Cachesize Hi, I understand this is hardcoded to a limit of 10000 but we use it for a small ISP network and quite often reach this, is it possible to make it 25000 in next release? Everyone has the choice at loading what to set it to, so I can’t see how this would cause issues. I would prefer to just use available packages than have to compile my own to adjust this and always have to remember the modification. Thanks, Nathan _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
