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