who is using multiple failover pairs on the same server

[Chuck Anderson]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:46:20PM -0400, Gordon A. Lang wrote:
> I have it working, and it works just fine so far, but I haven't put it 
> under load yet.

I have been doing this for about 7 years now, first with 5 servers, 
now with 3 in a hub-and-spoke arrangement where the hub is the primary 
for all failover peer relationships.  No issues, just be sure you use 
unique failover peer names for each pair of servers, and unique port 
numbers (I use the same port number and peer port number within each 
peer relationship, but of course different ports for the different 
failover peer relationships).

> But my concern is whether or not this sort of configuration might 
> challenge the code in a way that hasn't been tested and/or in a way that 
> will affect performance/capacity of the servers.
>
> The reason for my concern is because a person working for an IPAM 
> software vendor has asserted that ISC DHCP should not be trusted to do 
> any failover relationships other than single pairing based on their 
> testing.
>
> Is there any possible validity to his claim?

Well, they haven't tested it, therefore they don't trust it.  I've 
been using it in a production network for about 7 years, and I trust 
it completely.

> Is the code that mates leases to the correct failover peer tricky or  
> something?

No, I wouldn't think so.