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

    Mixed 32-bit and 64-bit HA Cluster?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved HA/CARP/VIPs
    11 Posts 5 Posters 2.6k 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.
    • E
      edinburgh1874
      last edited by

      Hi All,
      My main firewall is a Poweredge server running 2.2.2 64-bit, I would like to implement a failover firewall using a net6501 - which is 32-bit only.

      I won't be running any packages, the only services are routing and IPSEC.

      Are there any issues with this configuration?

      Cheers

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

        I have run a 32bit primary and a 64bit secondary firewall for years without anything but hardware issues.
        It seems like pfsync is broken in 2.2.2. If you can setup and report your finding to pfsync not syncing states to backup (2.2.2) topic in CARP. I would appreciate that.
        If we can confirm there is a problem on multiple environments, perhaps we can get a bug opened in Redmine.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • R
          rickbaran
          last edited by

          While it has worked for me in the past fine as we got into the more recent version we started having stability issue. Plus I think the future versions are not going to have a 32bit version at all. Check the PFS blogs I think that is where I saw that.

          So yes you can do it but would not recommended it, would find other hardware and stick with 64bit.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • E
            edinburgh1874
            last edited by

            Thanks for the replies, I actually just finished setting up 2 VMs to test this - it fails to and from the backup fine and performance is good.

            I wasn't aware of the states issue, so I checked, and right enough it's not syncing to the backup.

            Does this mean that in the event of a failover, traffic would need to be reestablished? If that's the case, I can live with this until it's fixed.

            Unfortunately I've just ordered 3 net6501, so am stuck with them for a while!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • jimpJ
              jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
              last edited by

              The usual reason on 2.2.x for states to not sync is that the interfaces are mismatched. States in 2.2.x are interface-bound, meaning the interface is a part of the state. For example if the primary node has igb(4) NICs and the secondary has em(4), the states can't sync.

              That can be worked around in a silly way by adding the NICs to single interface laggs so the states would be on lagg(4) interfaces on both.

              Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

              Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

              Do not Chat/PM for help!

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

                This is a  change I was not expecting. What was the reason for that change? Did it used to be tagged with just the interface pseudo name (WAN, LAN … what ever?)

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

                  @podilarius:

                  This is a  change I was not expecting. What was the reason for that change? Did it used to be tagged with just the interface pseudo name (WAN, LAN … what ever?)

                  if-bound states were not used in previous versions.

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

                    Is there an advanced option we can enable to change it back to the original behavior?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • jimpJ
                      jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                      last edited by

                      There is no way to adjust it.

                      Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                      Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                      Do not Chat/PM for help!

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

                        This means that uptime though diversity won't work.
                        If there is a bug in a particular driver for a particular NIC, it will exist on both FWs and potentially taking down an entire site.
                        I don't see this shift as a good thing. I was hoping for a reason to see if the good of the change out weighs this simple thing.
                        Thanks for all yours guys work on pfSense. It is an amazingly versatile product.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • jimpJ
                          jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                          last edited by

                          See above: It can be worked around.

                          If you were that adamant about redundancy you'd be using lagg/LACP interfaces already, and the problem doesn't exist when lagg interfaces are used.

                          Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                          Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                          Do not Chat/PM for help!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S sef1414 referenced this topic on
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.