ClearFoundation Tracker - ClearOS |
| View Issue Details |
|
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
| 0000813 | ClearOS | app-multiwan - Multi-WAN | public | 2012-11-01 17:40 | 2016-05-03 20:31 |
|
| Reporter | plfinch | |
| Assigned To | dsokoloski | |
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | |
| Platform | | OS | | OS Version | |
| Product Version | 6.3.0 Updates | |
| Target Version | | Fixed in Version | 6.4.0 | |
|
| Summary | 0000813: Enhancement: Multiwan Standby Failover |
| Description | I have ClearOS in gateway mode and have available one very high-speed and robust WAN connection on eth0 and one that is much slower and for emergencies only on eth1 (currently disabled). An emergency would be a failure of the main WAN connection where I am better running degraded on the slower connection than not at all but this currently requires manual failover. I do not see how this can be accomplished automatically with the current weighted load balancing setup. My situation requires that no traffic (well, maybe a tiny amount of diagnostic traffic to verify up down status) go over the standby WAN connection unless and until the primary fails. And then it should revert as soon as the primary is restored. I recommend adding a Mode setting to the MultiWAN settings screen with options for "Load Balance" and "Failover". Load Balance would work as current with parallel use of multiple interfaces balanced per the user specifed weightings. Failover would always use the highest weighted working interface exclusively rather than perform any load balancing - only a single WAN interface would be used at any time. As an aside, in Failover mode the Dynamic DNS module should update DNS based on the IP of the active WAN interface.
An example where this might be useful is where the primary WAN connection is a regular fiber, cable, or telco Internet connection, and the standby WAN connection is a cellular data connection with higher latency, possibly slower speeds, and tighter data caps with overage fees. (This is in fact my situation.) |
| Steps To Reproduce | |
| Additional Information | This enhancement was originally requested in this forum post:
http://www.clearfoundation.com/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,232/catid,19/func,view/id,46806/#46806 [^] |
| Tags | No tags attached. |
| Relationships | |
| Attached Files | |
|
| Issue History |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2012-11-01 17:40 | plfinch | New Issue | |
| 2012-11-07 12:11 | user2 | Status | new => confirmed |
| 2012-11-12 12:06 | user2 | Note Added: 0000580 | |
| 2012-11-12 16:11 | plfinch | Note Added: 0000581 | |
| 2012-11-12 16:23 | user2 | Note Added: 0000582 | |
| 2012-12-03 05:10 | user2 | Severity | minor => feature |
| 2016-05-03 20:31 | user2 | Status | confirmed => resolved |
| 2016-05-03 20:31 | user2 | Fixed in Version | => 6.4.0 |
| 2016-05-03 20:31 | user2 | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2016-05-03 20:31 | user2 | Assigned To | => dsokoloski |
| 2016-05-03 20:31 | user2 | Note Added: 0003221 | |
| 2016-05-03 20:31 | user2 | Status | resolved => closed |
|
Notes |
|
|
(0000580)
|
|
user2
|
|
2012-11-12 12:06
|
|
This has been implemented at the configuration file level. On ClearOS 6, add EXTIF_BACKUP parameter in /etc/clearos/multiwan.conf -- list any interfaces that should be used as failover only, for example:
EXTIF_BACKUP="eth2 eth3"
Restart the syswatch service:
# service syswatch restart
And feel free to watch things in action by tailing the /var/log/syswatch log file:
# tail -f /var/log/syswatch
I'm not sure if this has been tested in ClearOS 6, but it certainly works well in ClearOS 5. It's the same procedure except the configuration file is /etc/firewall instead of /etc/clearos/multiwan.conf. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Peter. My backup WAN interface is currently having issues but I'll give this a try when I get it working again. Would still prefer failover be configurable through webgui of course, and my recommended approach seems consistent with the UI and not overly complex, but it is your call whether to leave this request open, consider it a documentation enhancement request to at least mention the solution there, or close it as user misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
(0000582)
|
|
user2
|
|
2012-11-12 16:23
|
|
|
The feature should definitely be in the GUI! |
|
|
|
(0003221)
|
|
user2
|
|
2016-05-03 20:31
|
|
|
Bug cleanup - this was implemented in 2014. |
|