Am 23.12.2011 13:46, schrieb Ed W:
On 23/12/2011 12:38, Ed W wrote:
1) Atomic updates to the leasefile (or near enough for practical purposes)
2) Re-reading of the leasefile on change (in a way designed to support
use with a cluster filesystem or manual sync)
Actually, I missed a fairly mature
On 23/12/2011 12:38, Ed W wrote:
1) Atomic updates to the leasefile (or near enough for practical purposes)
2) Re-reading of the leasefile on change (in a way designed to support
use with a cluster filesystem or manual sync)
Actually, I missed a fairly mature solution idea, Samba's CTDB...?
Ed
On 22/12/2011 18:58, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote:
To sync the DHCP-Leases to the secondary server, you need to create a
ssh-key (ssh-keygen) to copy the lease-file without knowing the ssh-passord.
scp 10.0.0.251:/var/dhcp/dnsmasq.leases /var/dhcp/dnsmasq.leases
Please note that by default, aut
2011/12/22 Markus Schöpflin :
> Am 22.12.2011 19:58, schrieb
> richardvo...@gmail.com:
>
> [...]
>
>> See the dhcp-script and leasefile-ro options.
>
> Duh, I completely missed that option when reading the man page. This
> looks like it would enable two servers to be working in parallel.
It doesn'
Am 22.12.2011 19:58, schrieb
richardvo...@gmail.com:
[...]
See the dhcp-script and leasefile-ro options.
Duh, I completely missed that option when reading the man page. This
looks like it would enable two servers to be working in parallel.
Thanks,
Markus
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Michael Rack
wrote:
> Very easy.
>
> You need at least one virtual ip-address for your DNS- and DHCP-Server.
>
> So lets say you have a Class-C Network 10.0.0.0/24
>
> * Primary DNS / DHCP 10.0.0.251
> * Secondary DNS / DHCP 10.0.0.252
>
> Now, you add
Or, I think you could skip that if you setup the two, "actual" servers
to NAT all responses appropriate to DNS/DHCP ports, so everything always
looks like it's responding from the .250 address, regardless of whether
the .251 or .252 server actually sent the response.
I could be wrong.
On 12/
2011/12/22 Markus Schöpflin :
> Thank you for your idea. This really seems OK for our needs. If I understand
> things correctly, I would have to do that on all four LANs the current Dnsmasq
> is serving. Just one small additional question:
>
> Am 22.12.2011 15:13, schrieb Michael Rack:
>
>> Very ea
Thank you for your idea. This really seems OK for our needs. If I understand
things correctly, I would have to do that on all four LANs the current Dnsmasq
is serving. Just one small additional question:
Am 22.12.2011 15:13, schrieb Michael Rack:
Very easy.
You need at least one virtual ip-a
Very easy.
You need at least one virtual ip-address for your DNS- and DHCP-Server.
So lets say you have a Class-C Network 10.0.0.0/24
* Primary DNS / DHCP10.0.0.251
* Secondary DNS / DHCP 10.0.0.252
Now, you add a virtual IP to your primary DNS - lets say
* Virtual-IP
10 matches
Mail list logo
