cra at WPI.EDU
Fri Sep 14 20:09:45 UTC 2007
No, this post is just referring to using rsync to synchronize the
static part of the config file that is normally the same between both
the primary and slave in the failover pair. You still have to run
failover protocol in the DHCP server.
I wouldn't characterize the dhcp failover implementation as "buggy"
anymore. All the serious bugs got worked out long ago.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Ryan McCain wrote:
> I was reading back through older posts regarding failover and came
> across this response to one of my posts.
> Simon, could you clarify why using rsync would be easier? Is it
> because the dhcp failover implementation is still buggy?
> I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle DHCP high availability.
> >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 5:20 PM, in message
> <a06240812c2f509b88a47 at simon.thehobsons.co.uk>, Simon Hobson
> <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> > Ryan McCain wrote:
> >>Is this still the best way to handle DHCP failover?
> > That's more or less the standard setup.
> > However, you can make like easy for yourself by having ONLY the
> > failover declaration in the main dhcpd.conf file and an include
> > statement to include the rest of the config which is common between
> > both partners. You can then keep both copies in sync much more easily
> > using whatever tools your are happy with (scp, rsync, whatever).
More information about the dhcp-users