DHCP pair messed up, second one only running cant get primary up.

Rob Morin rmorin at datavalet.com
Sat Jan 14 02:39:01 UTC 2017

Sorry I had a typo in my email we cat /dev/null into dhcp. leases~ file not the active file 

Sent from Samsung Mobile

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Simon Hobson <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk> </div><div>Date:01-13-2017  3:30 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Users of ISC DHCP <dhcp-users at lists.isc.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: DHCP pair messed up, second one only running cant get primary up. </div><div>
</div>Rob Morin <rmorin at datavalet.com> wrote:

> Also the dhcpd.leases files grow too big for the /ramdisk, so we are each 10 mins catting /dev/null into /ramdisk/dhcpd.lease! file to save space.

I can't help with the other problems, but pray you don't have to stop the DHCP server at any time before it's re-written the compacted leases file ! Losing the leases file is "bad" in a big way.

I can't help with the specific problem, but I would suggest that if you lengthen the lease time (by a considerable amount) it will dramatically reduce the rate of growth of the leases file. With a lease length of 20 minutes, you'll have a renewal every 10 minutes (roughly) - so that's 6 lease updates to the leases file per hour !

For example, if you were to increase the lease time to (say) 4 hours, then your leases file would contain one record per lease (in practical terms, every address in your pools) plus one update for roughly 1/2 the active clients.

So your lease file size will change from total of IP ranges + 6x number of active clients, to total of IP ranges plus 1/2 the active clients.

Is there a reason for having such short leases ? It's quite short, longer leases bring much stability and much more leeway in dealing with DHCPO service issues !

Also, for consideration, you can have more than 2 servers in failover - but only 2 per pool. So it's possible to have (say) 3 servers sharing the load as A+B, B+C, and C+A. More complexity, but more scope for server failure without losing DHCP service - and more load sharing. Of course, you can also just split pools across an even number of servers as A+B, C+D, etc.

dhcp-users mailing list
dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20170113/04464a5a/attachment.html>

More information about the dhcp-users mailing list