<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/2/2022 11:30 PM, Gregory Sloop
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:15810207371.20220602213019@sloop.net">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" title="rt_noDelete">blockquote.rt {
margin: 0 0 15px;
border-left: 4px solid #81c784;
padding: 0 0 0 12px;
display: block;
}p { margin: 0 0 0 0 }.email-signature {font-family:"Arial"; font-size: 8pt; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; }</style>
<p class="norm">Are you seeing balance messages every hour as the
two re-balance the available lease pool?</p>
</blockquote>
No, I don't think so. It has only been a couple of hours since I
have had both online, however.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:15810207371.20220602213019@sloop.net">
<p class="norm"> </p>
<p>You say they are both handling leases properly, but how do you
know this? (That a machine gets a lease from somewhere is not
good evidence.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p> Do you mean because some other machine / device could be
issuing leases? No. In that case,</p>
<p> 1. Killing both servers would not take down any DHCP
clients. If both servers are shut down, DHCP clients start
failing in about an hour, until they are all dead.</p>
<p> 2. DHCP responses on the LAN stop completely the moment both
servers are taken down.</p>
<p> 3. No other machine would know anything about the list of
dynamically assigned fixed IP addresses in dhcpd.static. None of
the addresses of any of the clients ever change.</p>
<p> 4. Whenever one server is shut down, the other responds with
tons of responses in the log.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:15810207371.20220602213019@sloop.net">
<p>A packet capture in front of the secondary might be helpful to
see what traffic is passing - both to the peer and to clients.</p>
</blockquote>
While not impossible, that is a bit easier said than done. The
links between the servers are 10G. I can look into it.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:15810207371.20220602213019@sloop.net">
<p> </p>
<p>(I hate making captures, at least as much as the next person,
but dang if they don't, nearly always, show something that was
different than I assumed. So, I've just gotten a lot less averse
to getting captures. Yeah, they'll probably take me extra time
to setup and get and paw through, [all when I could be fixin'
stuff!] but they can save hours or days of fruitless searching
for a fix, when I don't even really *know* what's wrong yet.
Don't know about anyone else, but fixing problems gets a whole
lot easier when I actually know what's wrong, or at least have a
good idea what's going on. :)</p>
</blockquote>
<p> Agreed, although when an interface is chunking away at over
10,000 packets per second...</p>
<p> If something doesn't break loose, I will see about loading
Wireshark.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>