DNS Tsig buffer

[Kai Blin]

On 2012-09-05 14:38, simo wrote:

> it would be better to use a hash table (for example a tdb file) rather
> than a circular buffer. A buffer like this is extremely inefficient,l
> and will be quite slow in the worst situation when the buffer is filling
> up.

Is this really going to be a problem? Currently we
#define TKEY_BUFFER_SIZE 128
and because we're allowed to drop tkeys whenever we feel like, I don't
see a big reason to change this. I'm happy to look at this again if it
does turn out to be a performance issue, but I don't think making this
more complicated is necessary beforehand.

I mainly picked a ringbuffer because that was an easy way to make sure
we weren't going to keep millions of outdated tkeys.

Cheers,
Kai

-- 
Kai Blin
Worldforge developer http://www.worldforge.org/
Wine developer http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin
Samba team member http://www.samba.org/samba/team/