"peer holds all free leases" message

Marco Schirrmeister Marco at Schirrmeister.NET
Mon Oct 2 22:44:23 UTC 2006


On Oct 3, 2006, at 12:00 AM, Kirsten Petersen wrote:

> ns1:
> load average: 0.29, 0.25, 0.19
>
> ns2:
> load average: 0.09, 0.17, 0.17
>
>
> And that's typical for these boxes.  They only run dhcp and bind.
>
>
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 09:55:05AM -0700, Kirsten Petersen wrote:
>>>>> primary:
>>>>> active: 2572
>>>>> backup: 5835
>>>>> free: 4543
>>>>> expired: 2591
>>>>> released: 3
>>>>>
>>>>> secondary:
>>>>> active: 2577
>>>>> backup: 5834
>>>>> free: 4517
>>>>> expired: 2586
>>>>> released: 4

I had a similar problem for one of my pools.
Both nodes told "peer holds all free leases". This was not really  
true, because I have not 400 machines running in one subnet.
The problem in my case was the leasefile on the secondary node.
The leasefile on the secondary node had many 2 years old entries with  
an binding state released and an next binding state free.
But this never happens. I think the lease file was courrpt.

pimary node
lease 10.115.30.221 {
   starts 6 2004/11/27 18:49:57;
   ends 6 2004/11/27 19:49:57;
   tstp 6 2004/12/04 19:19:57;
   tsfp 6 2004/12/04 19:19:57;
   cltt 6 2004/11/27 18:49:57;
   binding state free;
   hardware ethernet 00:80:9f:56:13:59;
   uid "\001\000\200\237V\023Y";
   client-hostname "iptouch";
}

secondary node
ease 10.115.30.221 {
   starts 2 2004/11/30 06:54:01;
   ends 3 2004/12/01 00:05:44;
   tstp 3 2004/12/01 00:05:44;
   tsfp 6 2004/12/04 19:19:57;
   cltt 2 2004/11/30 06:54:01;
   binding state released;
   next binding state free;
   hardware ethernet 00:80:9f:56:13:2f;
   uid "\001\000\200\237V\023/";
   client-hostname "iptouch";
}

I checked both lease files and saw only the secondary node had this  
bad entries.

My solution was,

I stopped the secondary node
moved the leasefile
set mclt to 60
started the secondary node

Now the secondary synced with the primary.

After the the mode changed back from recover to normal I changed mclt  
back to a higher value


Maybe this helps you a little bit.


cheers
Marco




More information about the dhcp-users mailing list