Why using failover rules on top of load balancing rules? Not redundant?
-
Hello everyone,
i have a very simple setup with two DSL connections that i'm load balancing very simply with a gateway group where they are both tiers 1. Every thing is working great. But after reading the documentation and many websites tutorials i'm a little lost since they all advise to use also two other gateway groups (and associated rules) for failover. Can someone explain me why is that ?
I feel the load balancing rule does already the job so why bother ???Also, running 2.3.2-RELEASE, i come accross what i feel is a bug. When one of the DSL link goes down, i cannot access the firewal rule form "firewall_rules_edit.php" (creating or editing). I get a nginx timeout. Other part of pfsense seem good.
Thanks for any help !
-
there is no direct reason to 'cascade' failover rules below balancing rules if they are meant to match the same traffic …. pointless waste of time.
Also, running 2.3.2-RELEASE, i come accross what i feel is a bug. When one of the DSL link goes down, i cannot access the firewal rule form "firewall_rules_edit.php" (creating or editing). I get a nginx timeout. Other part of pfsense seem good.
thats odd. do you have a dns server set for each wan? (general settings)
no clue if this is a known issue or something specific in your situation, never encountered it myself -
there is no direct reason to 'cascade' failover rules below balancing rules if they are meant to match the same traffic …. pointless waste of time.
Great, thanks for your insight.
thats odd. do you have a dns server set for each wan? (general settings)
no clue if this is a known issue or something specific in your situation, never encountered it myselfYes, i have DNS servers for each Wan under general settings. I will try and dig some more.