David Mummery wrote:
Hi.
Sorry to ask what may seem to be a daft question, but do you have to make a
dhcpd.conf entry for every LTSP workstation on a network? Can you just set all
the options globally? I'm thinking of deploying this on a 10 user LAN to start
with, but there will also be non-ltsp
Hi.
Sorry to ask what may seem to be a daft question, but do you have to make a
dhcpd.conf entry for every LTSP workstation on a network? Can you just set all
the options globally? I'm thinking of deploying this on a 10 user LAN to start
with, but there will also be non-ltsp workstations on the LA
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Jason Bechtel wrote:
> Wolfgang-
>
> This is what happens when you use the 'default-lease-time -1' option?
> That would answer my question, then. If there is no true "lease" per
> se, and the only record of the address assignment is in the dhcpd.conf
> file, then even merely
Jason Bechtel wrote:
> >>All you have to do is replace the MAC address in dhcpd.conf and restart
> >>the DHCP server. It's a 5-minute procedure at the most that you *might*
> >>have to perform once in a week.
> > Yes, but I'm not always available.
> What about setting up Webmin?
To be honest, I h
David-
>>All you have to do is replace the MAC address in dhcpd.conf and restart
>>the DHCP server. It's a 5-minute procedure at the most that you *might*
>>have to perform once in a week. I agree that it does cost a finite
>>amount of $$$ (or ¤¤¤), but it's not that bad. <---should be Euro
Jim,
It should definitely be added to the documentation. And I think it
should also be added to the the .example file. But *how* should it be
added to the .example file?
If we add it commented out and with a note about the implications, then
we don't change the out-of-the-box behavior but w
Jason Bechtel wrote:
>
> David-
>
> >>Since many LTSP environments (do not have) uniform hardware in the
> >>workstations, one needs to specify different video, NIC, and perhaps
> >>kernel file settings for different workstations.
> > That's not so true with version 3. The autodetection seems
are case when the DHCP server
> cannot be relied upon?
>
> Jason
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:28:03 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Wolfgang Schweer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] DHCP question
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jason B
David,
bravo!
David wrote:
"Every installation has its quirks. However, I like LTSP because it
significantly reduces maintenance costs by allowing me to run networks
on autopilot most of the time."
_
Ltsp-discuss mail
David-
>>Since many (probably the great majority of) LTSP environments are not
>>done with uniform hardware in the workstations, one needs to specify
>>different video, NIC, and perhaps kernel file settings for different
>>workstations.
>>
> That's not so true with version 3. The autodetection
n. How to you feel about this step? Does
it make sense? Is it worth it for the rare case when the DHCP server
cannot be relied upon?
Jason
> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 18:28:03 +0100 (CET)
> From: Wolfgang Schweer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] DHCP question
&g
Jason Bechtel wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I disagree very much. Please see my comments below...
>
> David Johnston wrote:
>> As I understand it, ltsp uses dhcp in part to make IP address
>> assignments completely automatic. Infinite leases break this by
>> preventing address recycling.
> LTSP uses
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jason Bechtel wrote:
> Matt-
>
> Okay, but what about just sending it the signal to reread its
> configuration file (SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2, or whatever it prefers)? Will
> this also be enough to release the infinitely assigned address? If so,
> then we have an excellent, foolproo
David,
I disagree very much. Please see my comments below...
David Johnston wrote:
> Jason Bechtel wrote:
>
>>Jim and LTSP list,
>>
>>Should this be part of the automatic and/or documented DHCP settings
>>when configuring LTSP (default, everywhere)?
>>
>>It seems like nothing is risked by giv
y you
> dhcpd.conf file restart daemon and you shouldn't have a problem.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Bechtel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Jim McQuillan
> Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] DHCP qu
Jason Bechtel wrote:
> > From: Wolfgang Schweer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>You can change your entries in your dhcp.conf file for:
> >>"default-lease-time"
> >>and
> >>"max-lease-time"
> >>to a new and larger amount.
> >
> > having set a fixed address
TECTED]
Cc: Jim McQuillan
Subject: Re: [Ltsp-discuss] DHCP question
> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:44:39 +0100 (CET)
> From: Wolfgang Schweer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>You can change your entries in your dhcp.conf file for:
>>
> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:44:39 +0100 (CET)
> From: Wolfgang Schweer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>You can change your entries in your dhcp.conf file for:
>>"default-lease-time"
>>and
>>"max-lease-time"
>>to a new and larger amount.
>
> having set a fix
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You can change your entries in your dhcp.conf file for:
> "default-lease-time"
> and
> "max-lease-time"
> to a new and larger amount.
having set a fixed address for a ws, you can grant infinite lease
time with this entry:
default-lease-time -1
Wol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 1/31/02, 12:58:31 PM, "Charles Marcus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote regarding [Ltsp-discuss] DHCP question:
> Hi
Hi all,
I've been playing with a new system, and had an issue...
I've got a little hub that I'm using on the same subnet my main DHCP server. What
I've been doing is disconnecting the hub from my main network, starting up DHCP,
booting the DC, then shutting down DHCP and reconnecting the hub,
21 matches
Mail list logo
