Configurable DNS resolvers #4236
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hey @ysbaddaden, what's the current status on this? |
8 tasks
|
Nowhere. It should be reviewed, the failing specs be fixed, and the threaded resolver be extracted into a shard, since it doesn't fit the stdlib, leaving only the blocking and evented resolvers. |
|
@ysbaddaden failing specs seems to be IPv4 to IPv6 representation difference ? |
|
@ysbaddaden What is the current status on this? |
|
apparently libuv uses a thread pool for it as well: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44603059/why-libuv-do-dns-request-by-multiple-thread FWIW... |
|
I'd still loove to see an "all native" option for resolving DNS... :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request is a rework of #2829 with an alternative solution: introduce a configurable resolver. The initial issue is that we may have either:
getaddrinfo), which resolves everything but blocks the event loop;An usual solution to this problem is to have worker threads that will resolve domains asynchronously using the system call, whilst not blocking the event loop. This is okayish, but requires to have dedicated threads and communication.
This pull request doesn't choose one solution, but instead allows the developer to chose which one is the best for its application: a blocking resolver (default), an evented resolver or a threaded resolver, or any other solution.
There is one last thing I'd like to change: drop the per-request DNS timeout. It should be configured globally, either on the system, or when creating the resolver, if it's configurable. Actually, only the evented resolver has a DNS timeout configuration (global).