-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/11/2010 10:11 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Zitat von "W.C.A. Wijngaards" <[email protected]>: >> I could implement such an option so-sndbuf; would it be easier to just >> make it be equal to so-rcvbuf? (saves another config entry?) > > Not sure. The receive sockets are low in number and tend to higher > latency if the machine is under load and could not process the incoming > packets fast enough. The send sockets could be much higher in number > (outgoing-range?) and should in case of UDP only fall behind if the > available bandwidth is saturated. > So i guess the send buffer per socket used should be smaller than the > receive buffers...
The so-rcvbuf is only applied to the port-53 sockets for incoming queries. Like you say the outgoing sockets (due to port randomization) see less traffic per socket. Best regards, Wouter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzbuXIACgkQkDLqNwOhpPjJOwCgrh+rFWijEiVlUFLtULhIpSlU 4oQAnixCMFYsMUqThZH4nbgkZ2m2mGas =FCPj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
