o
hear arguments about it.
I also find this a basic feature that should not be missing from
dnsmasq. Is there still no way to do this ?
Thank you,
Timothy Madden
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://
why should the recursive resolver have the site in its cache for the
entire TTL of the site name ?
And if it happens not to have it, a new lookup costs about 2 seconds in my
case.
Timothy Madden
___
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
[...]
>> Exactly why should the recursive resolver have the site in its cache for
>> the entire TTL of the site name ?
>
> Because memory is cheap, so early eviction of data is not going to be
Nicholas Weaver wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Timothy Madden wrote:
>> And you were right, using
>> dig @8.8.8.8 ...
>> returned about 54ms for www.loveparty.ch, and 38 for www.google.ro, which
>> is so, so fast for me! But than again I would not lik
