Peer rebalancing problems

Norman Elton normelton at gmail.com
Tue Sep 3 20:07:57 UTC 2019


Just to confirm ... remove the failover declaration from one server,
and the entire subnet from the other server?

Norman

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:02 PM Bob Harold <rharolde at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> I remove the subnet from failover, so it only has one DHCP server, then after the servers settle, add failover back in.  It is a pain, but I have not found a better solution.
>
> --
> Bob Harold
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:44 PM Norman Elton <normelton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I just discovered this nugget:
>>
>> landlord01: peer wm-dhcp-01-02: Got POOLREQ, answering negatively!
>> Peer may be out of leases or database inconsistent.
>>
>> I will start googling and post if I discover anything.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Norman
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:41 PM Norman Elton <normelton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've seen references to this in previous posts, but no clear
>> > resolution. I've got two RHEL6 boxes (dhcp-4.1.1-63.P1.el6_10) setup
>> > in a failover pair. I discovered this morning that one server was
>> > stuck in "communications-interrupted" state. Turns out there were two
>> > dhcpd processes running simultaneously. Not sure how that happened,
>> > but shockingly, it wasn't happy.
>> >
>> > I've restarted both servers, we're back in normal failover state. But
>> > one of my subnets is still not balancing out:
>> >
>> > landlord01: balancing pool 55814b7e0ad0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
>> > free 58  backup 320  lts -131  max-own (+/-)38
>> > landlord01: balanced pool 55814b7e0ad0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
>> > free 58  backup 320  lts -131  max-misbal 57
>> > landlord02: balancing pool 55d8e05a4aa0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
>> > free 353  backup 0  lts -176  max-own (+/-)35  (requesting peer
>> > rebalance!)
>> > landlord02: balanced pool 55d8e05a4aa0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
>> > free 353  backup 0  lts -176  max-misbal 53
>> >
>> > It seems a little strange that both servers have a negative LTS value.
>> > And that they're so different. Is this explainable somehow?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Norman
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcp-users mailing list
>> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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