[Dnsmasq-discuss] load balanced dnsmasq?

richardvoigt at gmail.com richardvoigt at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 01:32:06 BST 2010

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Mariano Absatz <el.baby at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 16:05, clemens fischer
> <ino-news at spotteswoode.dnsalias.org> wrote:
> > Mariano Absatz wrote:
> >
> > (please don't top post)
> Sorry about that... I usually follow the "posting convention" I see
> and since richardvoigt had top-posted, I did the same.

Bottom posting is even worse than top posting.  I inline post in cases like
this where I'm directly addressing a particular paragraph or sentence,
otherwise top post.  Otherwise it may look like you've simply quoted another
sender and not added anything of your own.

> >
> >> So, given that, I may write down the static IP/hostname assignments in
> >> every dnsmasq server and that would give the correct name in every
> >> server.
> >>
> >> All would have the same MAC/IP/hostname configuration in dnsmasq.conf
> >> so even if there are dhcp collisions (e.g. because 2 servers got a
> >> broadcast request), they would all reply the same configuration and
> >> the clients should be happy enough, would they?

It's not even necessary that all servers offer the same configuration, the
client will pick one DHCPOFFER to reply to.

> >
> > I think richardvoigt meant to separate the configurations of the DHCP
> > servers to make them ignore requests they don't have entries for, if
> > that is possible.

No, that wouldn't be redundant and that's not what I'm suggesting.

Of course I do suggest an automated solution for pushing configuration
updates to all the servers from a single source.

> >
> > I was going to suggest splitting the network into a number of smaller
> > sub networks connected by switches, and maybe using dhcp-relay, another
> > fine product of simon.

This still puts all the load on a single server, which was the original

> Well... the 50 machines are actually connected to 5 different switches
> with 1Gbps uploads to a main switch where the 2 or 3 servers also
> connect with 1Gbps.
> I don't need subnetting among the machines (and I think I wouldn't
> like to do it, because that might add up routing problems) so I don't
> see an advantage in relaying dhcp...
> Anyway, do you think that configuring static dhcp mac/ip/hostname
> assignments in a redundant way in the servers and the ip/hostname
> relationship also in /etc/hosts is a bad thing to do?

It's perfectly fine.  Potential drawbacks are having dynamic leases
scattered all over or having configs get out of sync.

> Thanx for your answers (and patience).
> Regards.
> --
> Mariano Absatz - El Baby
> www.clueless.com.ar
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20100720/f12c8ba9/attachment.htm 

More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list