Shorter mclt times?

Simon Hobson dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk
Wed Jul 15 18:07:56 UTC 2009


Nicholas F Miller wrote:
>I'm not trying to be obtuse, but...
>
>...we currently have two dedicated DHCP servers (one is a hot spare) 
>that are barley taxed. I am at a loss to understand why a short MCLT 
>would cause us any trouble. Our current DHCP server can/could handle 
>a large number of clients that may start their leases around the 
>same time. Why would failover, with a failover partner as powerful 
>as the primary server, have a problem with a short MCLT?

It's not a case of "it will", people are just pointing out that if 
your servers are reasonably well loaded and you increase the load, 
then you could have problems. Also, there is a difference in load 
between handling a request-ack handshake to renew a lease, and 
handling a discover-offer-request-ack (sometimes abbreviated to DORA) 
handshake to deal with a client that's lost it's lease from the dead 
partner.

The same is true of normal lease time settings - shorter leases 
increase the load on the servers.

Since you are certain that you have a modest load, it's not going to 
be a problem for you.

-- 
Simon Hobson

Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.



More information about the dhcp-users mailing list