Peer rebalancing problems

[Bob Harold]

Yes.  (I use a managed solution from BlueCat Networks, but I assume that is
what it does under the covers.)

-- 
Bob Harold



On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:08 PM Norman Elton <normelton at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to confirm ... remove the failover declaration from one server,
> and the entire subnet from the other server?
>
> Norman
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:02 PM Bob Harold <rharolde at umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I remove the subnet from failover, so it only has one DHCP server, then
> after the servers settle, add failover back in.  It is a pain, but I have
> not found a better solution.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Harold
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:44 PM Norman Elton <normelton at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, I just discovered this nugget:
> >>
> >> landlord01: peer wm-dhcp-01-02: Got POOLREQ, answering negatively!
> >> Peer may be out of leases or database inconsistent.
> >>
> >> I will start googling and post if I discover anything.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Norman
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 3:41 PM Norman Elton <normelton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I've seen references to this in previous posts, but no clear
> >> > resolution. I've got two RHEL6 boxes (dhcp-4.1.1-63.P1.el6_10) setup
> >> > in a failover pair. I discovered this morning that one server was
> >> > stuck in "communications-interrupted" state. Turns out there were two
> >> > dhcpd processes running simultaneously. Not sure how that happened,
> >> > but shockingly, it wasn't happy.
> >> >
> >> > I've restarted both servers, we're back in normal failover state. But
> >> > one of my subnets is still not balancing out:
> >> >
> >> > landlord01: balancing pool 55814b7e0ad0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
> >> > free 58  backup 320  lts -131  max-own (+/-)38
> >> > landlord01: balanced pool 55814b7e0ad0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
> >> > free 58  backup 320  lts -131  max-misbal 57
> >> > landlord02: balancing pool 55d8e05a4aa0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
> >> > free 353  backup 0  lts -176  max-own (+/-)35  (requesting peer
> >> > rebalance!)
> >> > landlord02: balanced pool 55d8e05a4aa0 WIRELESS-FACSTAFF  total 2970
> >> > free 353  backup 0  lts -176  max-misbal 53
> >> >
> >> > It seems a little strange that both servers have a negative LTS value.
> >> > And that they're so different. Is this explainable somehow?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Norman
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dhcp-users mailing list
> >> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> >> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcp-users mailing list
> > dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> > https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20190903/980a89dd/attachment-0001.html>