Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    4 wan pfsense not loadbalancing accurately

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
    24 Posts 8 Posters 4.3k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • T
      tripplex
      last edited by

      I have 4 wan connection all 20mbps pfsense is successful in load balancing 2 of them, the other two are a hit or miss situation where it loadbalances them sometimes and sometimes not.
      I am using speedtest.net and fast.com for testing. I followed the tutorials and configured the loadbalancing, so why am i having this issue, someone please enlighten me?
      pfsense 2.3.2 p1 64bit
      IBM think centre m57
      hp nc364t quad port nic & intel pro 1000 t onboard nic.  FIVE NICS IN TOTAL.
      Core 2 duo 2.0ghz
      320gb sata hdd
      1GB RAM

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        ccmks
        last edited by

        Just want to check if the weights are configured with same value across all gateway. It is on system > gateway > edit on each each gateway to check

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • T
          tripplex
          last edited by

          Thanks for replying.
          All have a gateway of 1

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            ccmks
            last edited by

            From my experience, I think this is the issue with pfSense. It probably can only load balance until 2 WAN and rest of them just running idle.

            I also have 4 ISP installed on my pfsense and they are all load balancing. However, I notice that only first 2 WAN is doing load balancing and rest of them just running idle. It will start doing load balancing if I take down the WAN 1 or WAN 2. I believe this is a bug on load balancing in newer pfSense. Correct me if I am wrong

            Thank you

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • P
              Panerist
              last edited by

              This is strange. I have 3 WANs (2 x 100 Mbit/s and 1 x 200 Mbit/s) and they are load balancing nicely with my virtualized pfSense.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C
                ccmks
                last edited by

                @Panerist:

                This is strange. I have 3 WANs (2 x 100 Mbit/s and 1 x 200 Mbit/s) and they are load balancing nicely with my virtualized pfSense.

                I believe I have seen it works on 3 WAN, but when you have 4 WAN, only 2 WAN are doing load balancing. I am also using pfsense in virtualized environment.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • T
                  tripplex
                  last edited by

                  @ccmks that is so true. It works with 3 wan, because i had 3 wan before and it was load balancing fairly accurate but its not working properly since i upgraded to 4 wan.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • C
                    ccmks
                    last edited by

                    @tripplex:

                    @ccmks that is so true. It works with 3 wan, because i had 3 wan before and it was load balancing fairly accurate but its not working properly since i upgraded to 4 wan.

                    I thought I am not the only person who experience this. I am glad someone confirmed it. Now we know pfSense has limitation up to 3 WAN for load balancing. It can be considered as limitation or bug. Someone from development has to look at it.

                    I don't think many people are using more than 3 WAN besides us. Too bad, I have to use 4 WAN due to bad internet connection here.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • D
                      dhruvipatel
                      last edited by

                      I am not the only person who experience this.

                      My official website: http://www.dhruvipatel.com/

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • P
                        pwood999
                        last edited by

                        In each gateway set the Weight values to something other than 1.

                        Mine originally used 1 & 4 for the two WAN's (200Mb & 60Mb), but balancing seems to work much better using 2 & 8

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • T
                          tripplex
                          last edited by

                          Have a look at the attachment, as you can see the traffic graphs are not reporting the correct figures while a load is on the wans. Its the same on the lan.

                          What is the cause of this issue how can i resolve it.

                          lb.png
                          lb.png_thumb

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • P
                            pwood999
                            last edited by

                            Try using a different speed test site such as Speediest.net    Your speed-test only shows 19Mbps which is probably just using one of the WAN's for the test.

                            Set each GW to the same Tier, and in the Advance setting set the Weights all = 2.

                            Also, what external IP's are you using for the GW Monitor ?  They should all be different as far as I know.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • D
                              doktornotor Banned
                              last edited by

                              Looking at this thread - erm guys, using a random speedtest is absolutely INVALID way to test load balancing. It's about as "valid" as trying to lagg interfaces and wondering why the bandwidth did not double/triple/… when transferring a file from a single computer.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • johnpozJ
                                johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                                last edited by

                                QFT:

                                "It's about as "valid" as trying to lagg interfaces and wondering why the bandwidth did not double/triple/… when transferring a file from a single computer."

                                An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                                If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                                Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                                SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • T
                                  tripplex
                                  last edited by

                                  It should be reporting the correct figures while under load. I have 70 devices connected. During the peak hours the network is under heavy load and the traffic graphs only shoes some kilobits being used, they hardly go up. So I am wondering if its because of the access point being used, but then again that shouldn't matter whether wireless or lan.

                                  Only thing I can say is the traffic graph needs some work and the loadbalancing also.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • C
                                    ccmks
                                    last edited by

                                    @tripplex:

                                    It should be reporting the correct figures while under load. I have 70 devices connected. During the peak hours the network is under heavy load and the traffic graphs only shoes some kilobits being used, they hardly go up. So I am wondering if its because of the access point being used, but then again that shouldn't matter whether wireless or lan.

                                    Only thing I can say is the traffic graph needs some work and the loadbalancing also.

                                    Again, this is can be considered as a bug. If the developer can't fix it then I will consider pfSense has multi-wan limitation above 3 WAN.

                                    I also have multiple device actively using internet and only seems the first 2 of my 4 WAN are active and rest of them stay idle.

                                    Let alone multi-WAN, I also have problem with sticky connection which is defeat purpose of having load balancing if I have to setup fail-over for HTTPS (you can't do fail-over for HTTPS for non standard 443 port which I used to manage multiple remote router with various port).

                                    I ended up purchasing third party router to do loadbalancing and my pfSense just for internal router and VPN.

                                    So sad for pfSense which it's loadbalancing I use to proud is gone.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • DerelictD
                                      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                      last edited by Derelict

                                      IDK, guys. This is T-Rex-ing a mix of traffic through a 4 Tier-1 LOADBALANCE group.

                                      Yes it's 2.4-BETA but that's what I have set up right now.

                                      Looks load-balanced to me.

                                      Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 12.47.13 PM.png

                                      Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 12.57.55 PM.png

                                      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • T
                                        tripplex
                                        last edited by

                                        i see so you think we should all use 2.4 beta?

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • DerelictD
                                          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                          last edited by

                                          No. It's just what I have available to test in this lab right now. I have no reason to think the results would be any different in 2.3.3. Which I see you are not running since you have the old-style traffic graphs. Before calling out a bug you should at least be on the current version.

                                          Similar results with 8 interfaces in LB, btw.

                                          Speed tests are a lousy way to test load balancing. T-Rex is generating about 350K states.

                                          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                          DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • DerelictD
                                            Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                            last edited by

                                            8 WAN Load Balance 2.3.2-p1

                                            Load-Balance-8-WAN-2.3.2-p1.png
                                            Load-Balance-8-WAN-2.3.2-p1.png_thumb

                                            Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                            A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                            DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                            Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.