who is using multiple failover pairs on the same server

[Glenn Satchell]

>X-Authentication-Warning: angus.ind.WPI.EDU: cra set sender to cra at WPI.EDU 
using -f
>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:49:39 -0400
>From: Chuck Anderson <cra at WPI.EDU>
>To: dhcp-users at isc.org
>Subject: Re: who is using multiple failover pairs on the same server
>Mail-Followup-To: dhcp-users at isc.org
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-archive-position: 6891
>X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
>X-original-sender: cra at WPI.EDU
>List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
>X-List-ID: <dhcp-users.isc.org>
>X-list: dhcp-users
>
>On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:46:20PM -0400, Gordon A. Lang wrote:
>> I have it working, and it works just fine so far, but I haven't put it 
>> under load yet.
>
>I have been doing this for about 7 years now, first with 5 servers, 
>now with 3 in a hub-and-spoke arrangement where the hub is the primary 
>for all failover peer relationships.  No issues, just be sure you use 
>unique failover peer names for each pair of servers, and unique port 
>numbers (I use the same port number and peer port number within each 
>peer relationship, but of course different ports for the different 
>failover peer relationships).
>
>> But my concern is whether or not this sort of configuration might 
>> challenge the code in a way that hasn't been tested and/or in a way that 
>> will affect performance/capacity of the servers.
>>
>> The reason for my concern is because a person working for an IPAM 
>> software vendor has asserted that ISC DHCP should not be trusted to do 
>> any failover relationships other than single pairing based on their 
>> testing.
>>
>> Is there any possible validity to his claim?
>
>Well, they haven't tested it, therefore they don't trust it.  I've 
>been using it in a production network for about 7 years, and I trust 
>it completely.
>
>> Is the code that mates leases to the correct failover peer tricky or  
>> something?
>
>No, I wouldn't think so.
>
I think there was a change around 3.1.0. In earlier releases the
pairing was based on ip address and maybe port. In the later release
the failover name is used.

I agree, the setup has been running fine for me for about 3-4 years
where I set it up, although I don't look after it any more.

regards,
-glenn