-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Michael, On 07/07/2009 04:05 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > I noticed the (relatively) new dump_cache/load_cache > commands of unbound-control, and started experimenting. > > And immediately come across an.. issue. The TTL for > each RR is expressed as time-to-live since "now", it > is not an expiration time. For this reason it's not > possible to save the cache and load it back on restart > for example, because ttl in that case will be invalid. Yes at the same time the problem but also the reason people do it. > I wonder if it's a good idea to use absolute expire > time in place of TTL in dump/load_cache format. If > nothing else, prefixing the field with an equal sign > will do the trick (=1234567 to mean absolute time, > 1234567 - current - to mean ttl as it is now). > > And in general, do people use dump/load_cache to > start with? Well they want to dump to examine contents. Want to load to 'hot-start' the cache. So that the resolver starts with a full cache. For that to work the TTLs have to make the data 'valid'. I guess that the time of the dump could be stored. And the readback could make items that used to be valid, but are now expired, have a TTL of 10-30 seconds (random) spreading the work to refresh the entries. Best regards, Wouter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpTYK4ACgkQkDLqNwOhpPiWrQCfTT1UPzAWoKgk/R2XrV7AZ6yj l4YAn1ZCf0KdfX0gS1Jd5ADxTtqh7+wG =lqd8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----