Failover state changes

Chris Buxton clists at buxtonfamily.us
Wed Dec 18 16:42:34 UTC 2019


I can answer the latter question. Yes, max-unacked-updates affects recovery time when there are a large number of dynamic addresses, whether they have been assigned to client devices or not. Every available lease, whatever state, must be synchronized with the peer. Increasing the number of leases that can be sent at a time definitely appears to help speed this process along. I use a value of 1000 for this purpose, rather than the default of 10, and I've never seen any problems resulting.

Chris Buxton

> On Dec 18, 2019, at 2:08 AM, kraishak <kraishak.edu at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Team ,
> 
> When the failover server is newly added to the existing or when the failover
> is down and brought after few time to rejoin the cluster, the state on the
> failover is set to recover ---> recover-wait---->recover-done--normal but
> here I have few concerns about this process
> 1)The duration of time to update the state from the recover to normal stage
> is not predictable, I have tried multiple trials on my sandbox environment
> for same servers some times it take the exact values of the mclt duration
> some times it is almost triple or four times of the value, can i know what
> is the deciding parameters for the state changes ?
> 2) Does the value of max-unacked-updates have the role in the failover state
> change boosting time
> 
> 
> Thanks in Advance
> kraishak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://isc-dhcp-users.2343191.n4.nabble.com/
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> 



More information about the dhcp-users mailing list