Failover and config differences

[Chris Buxton]

On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:01 AM, Phil Mayers wrote:
>>> As time has gone by, the usage of the dynamic pools has risen to the point where one server is no longer enough to serve the number of clients
> 
> On 12/12/2012 05:34 PM, Chris Buxton wrote:
> 
>> 1. Failover does not give significantly better performance than one
>> server alone, or two servers using split scopes (as you currently
>> have). In my experience, depending on a number of factors including
>> configuration, performance might be +/- 30% or so compared to a
>> single stand-alone server. With split scopes, you're likely to get
>> better performance because the two servers aren't constantly
>> notifying each other of lease changes.
> 
> I don't really understand what you mean by performance here. CPU/IO utilisation? If so, I'm not in the least concerned about that - even under peak load, the DHCP process consumes minimal resource (the pcap-based logging daemon running alongside it uses more - a whole 2%).

You said that one server is no longer enough to serve the number of clients. I replied that two servers in failover will do no better, give or take 30%. Where's the confusion?

For your other questions, I don't have the answers.

Chris Buxton
BlueCat Networks