FusionHub High Availability?


#1

Hi,

I recently encounter instability with my FusionHub deployed in vSphere,
the device becomes unreachable via inControl (flip online/offline) and after some time the tunnels cease to work will appearing online.

It happened 2-3 times in the last 2 months and I ended up rebooting(relatively quick) the VM to solve the problem.

I am not sure where this comes from, it seems to occur more since I upgraded Balance routers to firmware v7.

is there by any change a possibility to deploy FusionHub in HA setup or do you recommend any thing to pro-actively act on software failure?

Cheers,
Florent


#2

May I know the problem occurs recently? If so, please open the ticket and let us know the date, time of the most recent incident.

Thanks.


#3

Hi Florent,
I have always recommended configuring Fusionhubs for critical systems in active/active Pairs. That way the remote device monitors the health of the Fusionhub (via the availability of the tunnel) and automatically routes traffic over the secondary Fusionhub if the primary is unavailable.

An added benefit (depending on your topology) is that you can then have the Fusionhubs is completely different datacenters - hosted by two different providers, so that if its a provider issue (as it often is) the other Fusionhub is still available.


#4

I encounter some strange performance issue.
I have on Balance 380 Router firmware v7.0.0s072 build 2074 connected to a FusionHub v6.3.2s002 build 1425

VPN Analyzer gives me the following:
VPN WAN1 to FH (UP): 1.72 Mbps Tx Avg, 1.92 Mbps Tx Max, 2.12% Packet loss, RTT 38.35ms
VPN WAN2 to FH (UP): 5.97 Mbps Tx Avg, 7.34 Mbps Tx Max, 0.55% Packet loss, RTT 19.91ms

at the same time if I run Iperf to another VM in same vSphere, I get the following results:

WAN1
date && iperf -c 188.165.xxx.xxx -P 5 -r
Wed May 31 12:27:55 CEST 2017

Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)


Client connecting to 188.165.xxx.xxx, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 45.0 KByte (default)

[ 8] local 10.42.0.60 port 35465 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 6] local 10.42.0.60 port 35463 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 7] local 10.42.0.60 port 35464 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 3] local 10.42.0.60 port 35462 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 9] local 10.42.0.60 port 35466 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 9] 0.0-10.1 sec 42.4 MBytes 35.3 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 0.0-10.1 sec 41.9 MBytes 34.8 Mbits/sec
[ 7] 0.0-10.1 sec 45.4 MBytes 37.7 Mbits/sec
[ 8] 0.0-10.1 sec 45.5 MBytes 37.6 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 0.0-10.3 sec 43.5 MBytes 35.4 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-10.3 sec 219 MBytes 178 Mbits/sec

WAN2
date && iperf -c 188.165.xxx.xxx -P 5 -r
Wed May 31 12:29:57 CEST 2017

Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)


Client connecting to 188.165.xxx.xxx, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 45.0 KByte (default)

[ 6] local 10.42.0.60 port 35468 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 3] local 10.42.0.60 port 35467 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 7] local 10.42.0.60 port 35469 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 8] local 10.42.0.60 port 35470 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ 9] local 10.42.0.60 port 35471 connected with 188.165.xxx.xxx port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 8] 0.0-10.0 sec 24.0 MBytes 20.1 Mbits/sec
[ 9] 0.0-10.1 sec 26.6 MBytes 22.0 Mbits/sec
[ 6] 0.0-10.2 sec 13.0 MBytes 10.7 Mbits/sec
[ 3] 0.0-11.0 sec 25.1 MBytes 19.2 Mbits/sec
[ 7] 0.0-11.0 sec 24.9 MBytes 19.0 Mbits/sec
[SUM] 0.0-11.0 sec 114 MBytes 86.6 Mbits/sec

Any idea what could cause the performance difference?

Cheers,
Florent


#5

This throughput test was done within the SpeedFusion tunnel.

Look like this throughput test was done out of SpeedFusion tunnel since iPerf client connected to a public IP.

SpeedFusion is using UDP but your iPerf test is using TCP. Please open ticket if you still have problem.


#6

Hi Martin,

Can you please exaplain a little how you perform HA using FusionHub ?
On the server side ? What’s the default gateway (or routes) defined ?? no VRRP support if 'm wrong with FH

Regards,

HA


#7

Sure. It looks like this:

Remote devices have a primary PepVPN / SpeedFusion tunnel configured to one hosted Fusionhub node and a backup to a secondary Fusionhub. Remote sites are distributed across Fusionhubs. Fusionhubs have a PepVPN between each other. Job done.