+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
Wireless Networks Thread, DHCP Redundancy in Technical; Originally Posted by Diello We've got it working on Windows here - but instead of excluding half the range, each ...
  1. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    554
    Thank Post
    3
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Diello View Post
    We've got it working on Windows here - but instead of excluding half the range, each DHCP server is only set to serve half the range each. We find it load balances perfectly.
    Can you describe in detail how you have it setup please?

  2. #17

    RabbieBurns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,521
    Thank Post
    1,333
    Thanked 469 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    199
    Well when the time came that the failover was needed - it failed!

    Got it set up like it is in the guide : Failover with ISC DHCP

    But today I get in and one of the DHCP servers is down. No problem, the failover should be doing the job, but it wasnt.. in the /var/log/messages was about peer holding all the leases or something. Ill find the exact message later.

    What could I have done wrong ?

  3. #18

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,803
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 583 Times in 504 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    224
    Are your DHCP servers authoritative? What are your min/max lease time settings?

    Also check your failover is ok. Is the slave acking the updates from the master server correctly?

  4. #19

    RabbieBurns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,521
    Thank Post
    1,333
    Thanked 469 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    199
    I copied the confs from that howto verbatim pretty much only changing the IPs etc, which has max set at 30 mins. They seem to be talking to each other fine, I cant get on just now to copy from the logs but Ill double check when I get a chance.

  5. #20

    RabbieBurns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,521
    Thank Post
    1,333
    Thanked 469 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    199
    managed to get the server back up within half an hour. It was the primary dhcp that went down. Last couple of entries in log, primary then secondary:

    Code:
    Oct  7 20:05:44 roberts dhcpd: peer dhcp-failover: disconnected
    Oct  7 20:05:44 roberts dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from normal to communications-interrupted
    Oct  7 20:05:45 roberts dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: peer moves from normal to normal
    Oct  7 20:05:45 roberts dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from communications-interrupted to normal
    Oct  7 20:05:45 roberts dhcpd: balancing pool 80de608 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-own (+/-)2
    Oct  7 20:05:45 roberts dhcpd: balanced pool 80de608 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-misbal 4
    Oct  7 20:05:45 roberts dhcpd: Sending updates to dhcp-failover.
    Oct  7 20:07:02 roberts dhcpd: Wrote 23 leases to leases file.
    Oct  7 20:07:02 roberts dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from normal to startup
    Oct  7 20:07:02 roberts dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: peer moves from normal to communications-interrupted
    Oct  7 20:07:02 roberts dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from startup to normal
    Oct  7 20:07:02 roberts dhcpd: balancing pool 80de608 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-own (+/-)2
    Oct  7 20:07:02 roberts dhcpd: balanced pool 80de608 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-misbal 4
    Oct  7 20:07:02 roberts dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: peer moves from communications-interrupted to normal
    Code:
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: Wrote 25 leases to leases file.
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from normal to startup
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: peer moves from normal to communications-interrupted
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from startup to normal
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: balancing pool 69f780 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-own (+/-)2
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: balanced pool 69f780 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-misbal 4
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: Sending updates to dhcp-failover.
    Oct  7 20:05:46 oasis dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: peer moves from communications-interrupted to normal
    Oct  7 20:07:03 oasis dhcpd: peer dhcp-failover: disconnected
    Oct  7 20:07:03 oasis dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from normal to communications-interrupted
    Oct  7 20:07:03 oasis dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: peer moves from normal to normal
    Oct  7 20:07:03 oasis dhcpd: failover peer dhcp-failover: I move from communications-interrupted to normal
    Oct  7 20:07:03 oasis dhcpd: balancing pool 69f780 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-own (+/-)2
    Oct  7 20:07:03 oasis dhcpd: balanced pool 69f780 192.168.2/24  total 25  free 12  backup 12  lts 0  max-misbal 4

  6. #21
    soapyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    180
    Thank Post
    49
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    13
    I am in a situation where I need DHCP redundancy I have a large range of 2032 Ip addesses avaliable this is slighly more than twice our current number of devices.

    I was wondering about the suitablilty of having each server provide addresses to a chunk of the total range.

    for example SVR1 would provide IP's for the first 1016 addresses this would cover the entire network at the moment. Then to have SVR2 service any remaining requests in needed.

    This way if SVR1 fails for any reason I would still be able to provide DHCP to the clients.

  7. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    554
    Thank Post
    3
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    15
    Theres multiple ways to to do it.
    Personally, although it requires more effort, i'd split it into smaller chunks.
    So server 1 did the first 255, server 2 the second 255, server 1 the third 255, and so on.

  8. #23
    soapyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    180
    Thank Post
    49
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    13
    Why would you up them in smaller chunks are there performace issues ?
    I do have 4 servers I could stretch the service over if it is worth while.

    Currently I do have one DHCP server providing IP's for the entire range.

  9. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    554
    Thank Post
    3
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by soapyfish View Post
    Why would you up them in smaller chunks are there performace issues ?
    I do have 4 servers I could stretch the service over if it is worth while.

    Currently I do have one DHCP server providing IP's for the entire range.
    Not as far as im aware.
    Just for redundancys sake tbh.
    Theres alot of schools of thought on how to do it, none are more correct than another tbh.
    As long as you have some sort of redundancy, then all is good tbh. lol. .

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Redundancy for printers
    By Maximus in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12th February 2009, 08:07 PM
  2. Data Error (cyclic redundancy check)
    By plock in forum Windows
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 8th January 2008, 05:05 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 21st December 2007, 02:40 PM
  4. AD and net connection redundancy..
    By contink in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12th September 2006, 07:53 PM
  5. failed redundancy - what to do?
    By browolf in forum Hardware
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd November 2005, 08:59 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •