VMware Communities: Message List - dns entries of nonpersistent linked clones

Re: dns entries of nonpersistent linked clones

SigurdAMD — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:00:50 GMT

I use a lease time of 1 hour and it works well

Re: dns entries of nonpersistent linked clones

deAracon — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:33:15 GMT

Thank you Christoph. Can you mention an appropriate time for the refresh intervall?

The Thing is, that primarily the machines with low numbers are coming up and you can imagine how often I kill these little tots. View Composer then tends to keep the lines closed, so it becomes a real problem. Best would be, if VC would go through a certain amount of VM-numbers before he's going to the beginning again, so the intervals for machine recreation would become significantly higher.

Re: dns entries of nonpersistent linked clones

Christoph Dommermuth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:04:25 GMT

Reduce the lease time of your DHCP leases. They should be default at ... 8 days I think .... reduce that and it should work fine.

Regards,

Christoph

Don't forget to award the points if this answer was helpful for you.

Blog:
http://communities.vmware.com/blogs/dommermuth | http://www.thatsmyview.net/

dns entries of nonpersistent linked clones

deAracon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:32:14 GMT

I have set up a VMware View testing environment with an automated pool of nonpersistent linked clones. One of the key demands to these machine from my side is, that they are to be destroyed after usage, so the user gets a "fresh" clone each time he connects. Everything works fine so far, but the machine entries in DNS are not updated or deleted as they should. So everytime a poolmachine gets recreated by the composer, the original entry of her predecessor is still in place in DNS and the new one ist not to be found with her actual IP.

I thought about differing the naming patter through a continuous ordernumber (would become astronomically high, i know) or something like that, but there is no option for such a wildcard given. So the only chance was to set DNS-Update to non-secure, which actually works. But this can't be the only solution. Do you know if there is a more suitable fix for this problem?

I would be gratedful for any suggestions. Thanks in advance