dhcpd upgrade 3.0.6 -> 3.1.2p1
David W. Hankins
dhankins at isc.org
Thu Aug 27 16:28:59 UTC 2009
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 08:49:55AM -0400, Darren wrote:
> max-lease-ownership 1;
> max-lease-misbalance 2;
> min-balance 30;
> max-balance 300;
a more aggressive lease rebalance profile should reduce situations
where one peer or the other exhaust their free leases...it shouldn't
make it worse. in the worst case the '1' and '2' values cause the
integer math to round down to zero and you get an even (or even/odd)
split of the free leases enforced on every pool rebalance run, every
basically this is a tradeoff; finer-grained pool balance in exchange
for greater cpu utilization.
so i'm open to the possibility you found some kind of bug here, but
i am thinking some other variable (even one outside of your control)
changed at the same time...
and yeah, they do need to be configured on both servers. i think the
manual only states which ones explicitly need to be configured on the
primary. at the time this feature was engineered, we were tracking
the standards track failover draft, and didn't feel we should extend
the protocol to carry our server-specific feature configurations.
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the dhcp-users