DHCP - > Question - 2 Servers - Same LAN

Hi

I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY backup
deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.

Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable the
secondary.

I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same time,
obviously with different range's?

That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY going down
and them having to activate the backup?

What do you guys think?

Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?

You can setup two DHCP using 50/50 rule. This how to may help.
Windows 2008 How to
How to install Windows 2008 Search service · How to open port 873 on
Windows 2008 Server · How to setup DHCP redundancy (50/50) on Windows 2008
....
www.howtonetworking.com/server/w2008.htm


--
Bob Lin, MS-MVP, MCSE & CNE
Networking, Internet, Routing, VPN Troubleshooting on
http://www.ChicagoTech.net
How to Setup Windows, Network, VPN & Remote Access on
http://www.HowToNetworking.com
"Kyle Blake" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9B36F45C-2E5F-4CE9-A8C4-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi
>
> I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
> I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY backup
> deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.
>
> Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable the
> secondary.
>
> I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same time,
> obviously with different range's?
>
> That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY going down
> and them having to activate the backup?
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?
>

Hello Kyle,

Run both servers together, with 50/50. Create a full scope and split the
scope in 2 halfs and exclude one of them in each server. So you have redundancy
always.

Also have a look here:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/window....mspx?mfr=true

http://technet2.microsoft.com/window....mspx?mfr=true

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

> Hi
>
> I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
> I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY backup
> deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.
> Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable the
> secondary.
>
> I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same time,
> obviously with different range's?
>
> That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY going
> down and them having to activate the backup?
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?
>

"Kyle Blake" wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
> I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY backup
> deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.
>
> Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable the
> secondary.
>
> I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same time,
> obviously with different range's?
>
> That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY going down
> and them having to activate the backup?
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?
>

I agree with Robert and Meinolf, but would add the following.

If you have any fixed-IP reservations, exclude these from both
non-overlapping pools for distribution.
Then assign these reservations on the second DHCP server as well.
--
Regards,
Newell White

Thanks for your replies guys!

I reviewed the 50/50 rule link, but they fail to say how many clients they
need to serve no matter what. I also think the only difference between my
suggestion and the 50/50 rule is the complexity of adding exclusions. [not
hard but not required imo ] Since my way doesn't overlap I still fail to see
why a 50/50 is "better".

I mentioned I need approx 75 clients

Following the 50/50 way, does the following look ok below?

DHCP1 SERVER ( can provide 75 leases )
192.168.133.35-186
Exclude 192.168.133.111 - 192.168.133.186

DHCP2 SERVER
192.168.133.35-186 ( Can provide 75 leases )
Exclude 192.168.133.35 - 192.168.133.110

"Newell White" wrote:

>
> "Kyle Blake" wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
> > I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY backup
> > deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.
> >
> > Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable the
> > secondary.
> >
> > I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same time,
> > obviously with different range's?
> >
> > That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY going down
> > and them having to activate the backup?
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?
> >
>
> I agree with Robert and Meinolf, but would add the following.
>
> If you have any fixed-IP reservations, exclude these from both
> non-overlapping pools for distribution.
> Then assign these reservations on the second DHCP server as well.
> --
> Regards,
> Newell White

"Kyle Blake" wrote:

> Thanks for your replies guys!
>
> I reviewed the 50/50 rule link, but they fail to say how many clients they
> need to serve no matter what. I also think the only difference between my
> suggestion and the 50/50 rule is the complexity of adding exclusions. [not
> hard but not required imo ] Since my way doesn't overlap I still fail to see
> why a 50/50 is "better".
>
> I mentioned I need approx 75 clients
>
> Following the 50/50 way, does the following look ok below?
>
> DHCP1 SERVER ( can provide 75 leases )
> 192.168.133.35-186
> Exclude 192.168.133.111 - 192.168.133.186
>
> DHCP2 SERVER
> 192.168.133.35-186 ( Can provide 75 leases )
> Exclude 192.168.133.35 - 192.168.133.110
>

Looks fine to me Kyle.
--
Regards,
Newell White

Hello Kyle,

Looks ok.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

> Thanks for your replies guys!
>
> I reviewed the 50/50 rule link, but they fail to say how many clients
> they need to serve no matter what. I also think the only difference
> between my suggestion and the 50/50 rule is the complexity of adding
> exclusions. [not hard but not required imo ] Since my way doesn't
> overlap I still fail to see why a 50/50 is "better".
>
> I mentioned I need approx 75 clients
>
> Following the 50/50 way, does the following look ok below?
>
> DHCP1 SERVER ( can provide 75 leases )
> 192.168.133.35-186
> Exclude 192.168.133.111 - 192.168.133.186
> DHCP2 SERVER
> 192.168.133.35-186 ( Can provide 75 leases )
> Exclude 192.168.133.35 - 192.168.133.110
> "Newell White" wrote:
>
>> "Kyle Blake" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
>>> I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY backup
>>> deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.
>>> Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable the
>>> secondary.
>>>
>>> I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same time,
>>> obviously with different range's?
>>>
>>> That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY
>>> going down and them having to activate the backup?
>>>
>>> What do you guys think?
>>>
>>> Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?
>>>
>> I agree with Robert and Meinolf, but would add the following.
>>
>> If you have any fixed-IP reservations, exclude these from both
>> non-overlapping pools for distribution.
>> Then assign these reservations on the second DHCP server as well.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Newell White

Curious guys, mine is more of a 100/100 rule right?

You know I've ran with two small scopes with not exclusions and it's worked
just fine for two weeks.



"Meinolf Weber" wrote:

> Hello Kyle,
>
> Looks ok.
>
> Best regards
>
> Meinolf Weber
> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
> no rights.
> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>
> > Thanks for your replies guys!
> >
> > I reviewed the 50/50 rule link, but they fail to say how many clients
> > they need to serve no matter what. I also think the only difference
> > between my suggestion and the 50/50 rule is the complexity of adding
> > exclusions. [not hard but not required imo ] Since my way doesn't
> > overlap I still fail to see why a 50/50 is "better".
> >
> > I mentioned I need approx 75 clients
> >
> > Following the 50/50 way, does the following look ok below?
> >
> > DHCP1 SERVER ( can provide 75 leases )
> > 192.168.133.35-186
> > Exclude 192.168.133.111 - 192.168.133.186
> > DHCP2 SERVER
> > 192.168.133.35-186 ( Can provide 75 leases )
> > Exclude 192.168.133.35 - 192.168.133.110
> > "Newell White" wrote:
> >
> >> "Kyle Blake" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
> >>> I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY backup
> >>> deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.
> >>> Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable the
> >>> secondary.
> >>>
> >>> I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same time,
> >>> obviously with different range's?
> >>>
> >>> That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY
> >>> going down and them having to activate the backup?
> >>>
> >>> What do you guys think?
> >>>
> >>> Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?
> >>>
> >> I agree with Robert and Meinolf, but would add the following.
> >>
> >> If you have any fixed-IP reservations, exclude these from both
> >> non-overlapping pools for distribution.
> >> Then assign these reservations on the second DHCP server as well.
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Newell White
>
>
>

Hello Kyle,

Well, it may be run, but if another client get's the same ip from the other
DHCP server you are in trouble with your user.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

> Curious guys, mine is more of a 100/100 rule right?
>
> You know I've ran with two small scopes with not exclusions and it's
> worked just fine for two weeks.
>
> "Meinolf Weber" wrote:
>
>> Hello Kyle,
>>
>> Looks ok.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Meinolf Weber
>> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
>> confers
>> no rights.
>> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
>> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>>> Thanks for your replies guys!
>>>
>>> I reviewed the 50/50 rule link, but they fail to say how many
>>> clients they need to serve no matter what. I also think the only
>>> difference between my suggestion and the 50/50 rule is the
>>> complexity of adding exclusions. [not hard but not required imo ]
>>> Since my way doesn't overlap I still fail to see why a 50/50 is
>>> "better".
>>>
>>> I mentioned I need approx 75 clients
>>>
>>> Following the 50/50 way, does the following look ok below?
>>>
>>> DHCP1 SERVER ( can provide 75 leases )
>>> 192.168.133.35-186
>>> Exclude 192.168.133.111 - 192.168.133.186
>>> DHCP2 SERVER
>>> 192.168.133.35-186 ( Can provide 75 leases )
>>> Exclude 192.168.133.35 - 192.168.133.110
>>> "Newell White" wrote:
>>>> "Kyle Blake" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one class subnet, I have roughly 80 workstations.
>>>>> I was going to run a primary DHCP and then have a hot STANDBY
>>>>> backup
>>>>> deactivated secondary DHCP server on another computer.
>>>>> Just in case the main DHCP went down my coworker couldn't enable
>>>>> the
>>>>> secondary.
>>>>> I started thinking, what about running both scopes at the same
>>>>> time, obviously with different range's?
>>>>>
>>>>> That way my co-workers wouldn't have to worry about the PRIMARY
>>>>> going down and them having to activate the backup?
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both scopes can support all clients on their own, why not!?
>>>>>
>>>> I agree with Robert and Meinolf, but would add the following.
>>>>
>>>> If you have any fixed-IP reservations, exclude these from both
>>>> non-overlapping pools for distribution.
>>>> Then assign these reservations on the second DHCP server as well.
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Newell Whit