> Am Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:48:12 +0200
> schrieb Peter Rathlev <
[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hmm... I'm not sure I understand the configuration:
> >
> > On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 17:14 +0200, Ruben Wisniewski wrote:
> > > subnet 10.66.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 {
> > > range 10.66.11.1 10.66.20.255; #main
> > > pool {
> > > range 10.66.1.1 10.66.10.255;
> > > deny all clients;
> > > }
> > > pool {
> > > range 10.66.30.1 10.66.254.255;
> > > deny all clients;
> > > }
> >
> > Wouldn't the "deny all clients" statements make those ranges a
> > no-op? So each subnet has just 2558 available leases? But maybe
> > this is just testing?
> We need this deny all clients statement because of our
> routing-protocol.
>
> The protocol is rerouting all dhcp traffic to the dhcpd-server which
> have the best connection. So all other dhcp-servers does not get the
> DHCPINFORM/DHCPREQUEST. So we need to activly deny the
> other ranges, because no other dhcp-server will respond to the querys.
>
> Example:
>
> The client knows the network, 10.66.0.0/16 and had the 10.66.11.2 the
> last time.
>
> Our routing-protocol is routing the DHCPREQUEST to the server we
> discuss about.
>
> The dhcpd get an DHCPREQUEST for 10.66.11.2 which is out of his range
> but in the subnet-definition and silently ignore the request, because
> he thinks he is not responsible for this requests.
>
> Since we know, no other dhcpd will get this client-packages, we need
> to activly respond with DHCPNAK to change the client's status about
> his ip-address.
>
> Now the client ask for a new lease and the dhcpd respond with an
> ip-address out of his range.
>
> If we remove this "deny all clients" rule out of our configs, the
> clients ask several times for the old ip-address, destroy any roaming
> in the network. Any reconnect takes 12-15 seconds, depend on the
> client's implementation of dhcpd. With this rule we got an ip in under
> 1 second.
>
> > What part is it that you see constantly increasing in that graph? I
> > see the swap doing something that looks like an asymptotic increase
> > towards some number around 1 GBytes or thereabout. Similar for
> > "committed", whatever that is in this context.
> "committed" is not used but reserved memory and can be ignored.
>
> I think the part which is constantly increasing is the nameserver's
> cache.
>
> > Is this a failover setup? The configuration doesn't say that, but
> > in a failover setup the servers always create all leases from the
> > beginning. The only thing that make the memory usage grow is
> > whatever extra information is added to the leases, and there might
> > even already be memory reserved for some of that in advance.
> Well not in the dhcpd-meaning. Each dhcp-server has it's range and
> just got requests for the clients he has to care about, which got be
> determined by routing protocol.
>
> > I'd say it looks normal. Running a DHCP server for 1.5 million
> > leases
> > is no small feat. Running a server at all with just 512 MBytes of
> > RAM sounds like asking for trouble anyway. (RAM inflation, I know,
> > but RAM is cheap these days.)
> Actually we just use the 2558 leases, not the 1.5 million ones. Since
> the config says, that no client will ever use the other pool.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Ruben
>