On 18 Aug 2004 20:03:56 -0700 Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > > > We were considering it, since it'd be doable now that we prefork and keep > > a spamd process running for a few hundred messages. However, the other > > devs were pretty sure that a local caching "named" process would probably > > do the trick nicely enough. (me, I'm not quite convinced ;) > > 1. As others have stated and I'm sure you know, negative caching should > work on a local DNS caching server. > 2. Are you willing to write the code in the hopes it helps? Show > me the benchmark and I'll follow along. :-) Does perl's Memoize module help any? Dunno when this module made it into perl core but I believe it's available in the 5.8.0 distribution and onward. If it's that important, you can keep a persistent cache with Memoize::AnyDBM_File, Memoize::Storable, etc. and expire with something like Memoize::ExpireLRU, etc. No benchmarks, just comments from the peanut gallery... -- Bob
