<span class="gmail_quote">On 1/10/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">David W. Hankins</b> <<a href="mailto:David_Hankins@isc.org">David_Hankins@isc.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0; margin-right: 0; margin-bottom: 0; margin-left: 0; margin-left: 0.80ex; border-left-color: #cccccc; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex">
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:54:29AM -0800, David W. Hankins wrote:<br>> > I have 2897 pool that get balanced every time I reload the dhcp server<br>> > and every hour.<br><br>Although honestly if you have that many pools, it would actually work
<br>out better if all the pools rebalance events were done individually<br>and scheduled separately with some random dispersion. 3,000 pools to<br>check is a significant amount of time to spend churning CPU and not<br>answering queries.
<br><br>The troubles with that in the 3.1.x and 4.0.x sources is that our<br>event (timed) scheduler does not cope well with large numbers of<br>pending events, and the failover protocol message POOLREQ (which is<br>used by one peer to politely ask the remote peer to cough up some
<br>leases) doesn't have a means to identify which pool they want to<br>make a request for...you have to search them all. So it makes for<br>some challenges in keeping shared code.<br><br>Some day. Maybe they could even be balanced by different processors
<br>in that ethereal future everyone keeps talking about.<br><br>--<br>Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.<br>Why settle for the lesser evil? <a href="https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/">https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
</a><br>--<br>David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,<br>Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."<br>Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
<br><br></blockquote><br><br>Am I misuderstanding something ... are you saying that while the servers are balancing pools, they're not responding to DHCP requests? <br><br><br><br>