Static vs Dynamic - Performance????

I'm wondering if there is a definite performance gain or loss when you run Dynamic or Static. I look after 5 small networks (3-16 W/Stations) that are all set to Static IP's, but I've been told that performance increases with Dynamic. Is this true?? I ran some tests on a home network that involved 2 - W/S's and a Router.
I used the Router to generate the IP's and limited it to only a 5 address range. This slowed down all operations immensly. When I switched back everything seemed fine. Did I overlook something during setup? I realize there is a definite advantage to adding or moving stations when you don't have to worry about addressing clashes but I don't want a performance loss.

If you have some ideas, comments, or whatever, I'm listening.

Thanks, Raskal

 

I have no idea why anyone would have said there was a performance gain from using dymanic IP addresses. It simply isn't true.

OTOH there shouldn't be a performance hit when having some program assign them either except for a brief delay for a computer first starting up to query the name server, get a response, and set the variables. Once that is done things should be back to normal unless you have the address lease assignments set really short and there is lots of query traffic from that.

The advantage of dynamic is with large networks and then only to reduce the required housekeeping. Even then it is common to give static addresses to all the servers and put a hosts file on each client PC with all the server information included (or LMHosts if you are a little more sophisticated since it can do a bit more).

My suggestion with your size network is to use static addressing, to put a hosts file on each PC with a list of all PCs and addresses, and to turn off browsing on all except maybe one PC that is left on all the time or maybe several.