On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:52 AM Buck Horn <buckh...@weibsvolk.org> wrote:
> Blindly increasing dns-forward-max without having analysed the actual > issue does not seem to recommend itself as the best option available to > me, even if it would turn out that actual resource impacts are minor. > > Stopping or unconfiguring the DNS loop or switching to more reliable > upstreams would seem more adequate measures to address the warning. > > If you have actively been involved in investigating such an issue, it > may be worth verifying those causes, if only to preclude them. ;) > Hi Buck, Thanks a bunch for the possible causes. As you could probably tell from my "assuming", I have not done any root cause investigation, all the reports are just anecdotal "I saw this, then did that, and the issue went away..." In some of the posts, it has been suggested that the installation default be raised to 500 based on these reports, because "why not?" and "it looks like it fixes something?" So, at this point I'm still in tentative data collection phase and armed with your suggested avenues of investigation, I'll see if I can get someone to reproduce the problem and find the real root issue. Thanks again, Eric
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
