SpeedFusion - send traffic over additional lower quality or higher cost WAN 2 when higher quality WAN 1 saturated

I’ve been using SpeedFusion for a week now, and one feature that I would really like would be the capability to route traffic over WAN 2 when WAN 1 is fully saturated on either the upload or download side.

My scenario:
WAN 1 = DSL. Low latency, consistent, quick, but only 1 mbps upload speed.
WAN 2 = LTE. Higher latency, higher jitter, but 10 mbps upload speed.

If I use speedfusion over WAN 1 + WAN 2 currently, latency and jitter increases which means in times when WAN 1 has ample bandwidth to spare, the connection actually gets slightly worse with speedfusion using WAN 1 + (the higher latency) WAN 2 in terms of latency and jitter.

But when a large file is uploaded, it would be great to have WAN 2 upload bandwidth in the mix as during these times SpeedFusion with the LTE connection active would really improve things.

(I don’t want to stop using WAN 1 when it’s being 100% utilized, I just want to add WAN 2 when WAN 1 is being 100% utilized.)

It seems there is currently an option to drop a WAN connection if the latency goes over a set threshold. What I would like to see would be an option to use the condition of WAN 1 (latency or utilization % of WAN 1) and based on WAN 1 condition, take an action on WAN 2: enable WAN 2 traffic.

So if WAN 1 hits 95% utilization, turn up WAN 2 traffic.

Or another way it could work, if WAN 1 latency increases from 30 ms to 100 ms (which happens when it’s saturated fully) start additionally routing traffic over the lower quality WAN 2 (which would be 50-70ms)

1 Like

You can change the speedfusion traffic distribution policy. open a wen browser to your device and login, then change index.cgi to support.cgi in the address bar and go to the page.
Then click on this link:
Which takes you to the PepVPN/SPeedFusion profile page, edit a profile and you’ll see a new line:

You can then choose Overflow:

The help text for overflow says:
Overflow - Use the wan-to-wan link with highest overflow precedence for sending traffic. Overflow to link with lower precedence when the current one is congested, or approaching WAN upload / download bandwidth defined by user.


Remember to set the available Bandwidth for each WAN in the WAN settings page to give this a chance of working effectively.



With a multiWAN Balance ↔ FusionHub setup, would Traffic Distribution policy overflow need to be set on both the balance and the fusionhub, or only on the balance?

I’ve tested this for a couple hours.

Setting up the speedfusion tunnel manually on the balance and the fusionhub, I wasn’t clear if I needed to set the traffic distribution to match on both or only on the device initiating the speedfusion tunnel (?) (I tried both, first setting this only on the balance which initiates the speedfusion connection since it doesn’t have a public IP, and then setting it on both the balance and the fusionhub. I didn’t see any difference between these tests but would like to know the correct procedure.)

The overflow method for speedfusion is really interesting to me in that it seems to have the potential to deliver the low latency of the lowest latency connection when it can handle all the bandwidth needs.

In a couple hours of testing however, oddly, I couldn’t get it to utilize the second WAN for download (from the internet to the balance) nearly as effectively as traffic distribution bonding, but the upload side worked fairly well.

Speedfusion traffic distribution Bonding 15/1 DSL + 20/10 LTE resulted in a download of 25.6 mbps
Speedfusion traffic distribution Overflow 15/1 DSL + 20/10 LTE resulted in a download of only 17 mbps

I speedtested the DSL line at 14.5 alone, and adjusted the wan 1 (DSL) download bandwidth setting from 16 to 15 to 14.5 (entered as kbps) to 14 to 13 but didn’t see any real improvement.

1 Like

I really like the idea though as a way to add LTE upload speed without giving up my fast low latency DSL ping times. But in testing for another couple hours tonight, I don’t seem to be able to make it really work, yet, and at this point I’m out of ideas for how to tweak the settings for pepvpn traffic distribution: overflow, although I will probably try some more as I get any new ideas, as I like the idea of being able to have LTE upload bandwidth when needed without sacrificing the low latency and zero jitter of the dsl connection.

With distribution: bonding,
DSL 1 + DSL 2 = 27 Mbps download speed and 1.6 Mbps upload speed
DSL 1 + LTE 2 (with latency cutoff 100 ms on WAN 1) = 25.6 Mbps download speed and 8.5 Mbps upload speed (with disadvantage that pings vary up to LTE ping when connection is lightly loaded most of the time.)

With distribution: overflow,
DSL 1 + DSL 2 = 15.6 Mbps download speed and 1.3 Mbps upload speed (speedtest.net) although testmy.net doesn’t seem to clock more than 1 Mbps upload speed in this configuration
DSL 1 + LTE 2 (with latency cutoff 100 ms on WAN 1) = 17.2 Mbps download speed and 5.7 Mbps upload speed (with the advantage that pings from command line are steady 30 ms when connection is lightly loaded most of the time)

1 Like

Ultimately my goal is to use DSL 1 + DSL 2 + LTE (for upload speed when needed) using WAN 1, WAN 2, and WAN 3.

Right now, it seems the highest performance way for me to do this is to physically plug in the LTE wan when I need to upload something really large, and physically unplug it when I don’t. (if I leave the LTE active, ping times go from steady 30ms when doing low-bandwidth activities or browsing to variable between 30 and 100 ms so the connection doesn’t feel as quick. Plus I’d rather not pay for metered LTE banwdith when it’s not adding to the speed but actually making it feel slower during regular browsing or small emails for example. But it sure is nice to have LTE active when uploading a 200 Mb file for example.)

It would be really amazing if there were a way to program the balance or speedfusion to “enable WAN 3 when upload bandwidth > 1 Mbps” or “enable WAN 3 when WAN 1 ping > 100 ms”

1 Like

I have a second use case coming up in a few months, similar but different to above. As this thread started, I wanted to use speedfusion to bond DSL1 + DSL2 + LTE.

Coming up, I have a primary connection which is a WISP and would love to figure out how to benefit from LTE bandwidth kicking in when needed, without degrading the quick feel of the WISP connection. The WISP plan is 10 mbps down / 2 mbps up with under 20 ms latency. I can get metered 20-40 mbps LTE there, but with around 60 ms latency. What’s nice is the way the WISP traffic shapes, they actually provide faster than the plan for small transactions – small uploads like sending a single email photo, the 10/2 connection uploads at around 4 mbps. Speedtest.net tests around 3.25 mbps up for the amount of data that speedtest.net uses for the test. If you continue to upload larger files, it settles down to 2 mbps which is the plan offering. In general, this is pretty darn nice for the wisp users as it makes the connection feel very fast for general browsing by offering quicker burst speed for small transactions and general browsing, so you get a 10/2 connection as the package is sold for “heavy lifting” or anything that is a large or continuous data transfer, but for general browsing that’s generally small transfers, it feels more like 20/4.

Now the question is, can I benefit from the faster LTE data for larger transfers without incurring the drawback of higher latency and metered data…

Since speedfusion graphs the transfer for each connection when you view the graphs, I’m assuming it’s keeping track of the transfer rate at all times.

It sure would be nice if you could use the transfer speed and kick in/add the LTE connection when WAN1 was at 2 mbps for example.

I’m not sure if there’s another way to benefit from LTE in this second use case that would be better than plugging it in for me. I will say that with speedfusion it’s nice that I can plug in the LTE manually and have the one public IP so I can manually boost a large transfer speed without any interruption, and then just disconnect it when done. But it would be neat to have something that automatically did something like this to utilize the LTE when it would be beneficial. Add route over WAN2 or WAN3 when WAN1 parameter = x

On the DSL + LTE test or DSL + DSL test, overflow kind of worked, but I couldn’t think of how to change settings to get nearly as good of performance as I got with bonding selected and manually acting as the “plug in” and “unplug” LTE when it would be beneficial. With this second use case, oveflow would require setting one number for max speed of the wisp, while the wisp doesn’t have one max speed (it would clip off the performance benefit of the wisp which offers faster speeds for small transactions which ramp down to the advertised speed with larger transactions as there is currently only the one max speed to set for overflow.) If there were some way to make the LTE additive based on WAN 1 traffic, automating my manual “plug it in when needed” approach the full benefit of the wisp connection could be had and then LTE could kick in when there was a large transfer happening.

1 Like

have you tried simply using the outbound algorithm “fastest response” and setting all connections in priority 1? remove the https persistence (as i recently have). my setup is performing much better now. i am in a similar situation as you with the unit on a boat. i have LTE, 2.4 wifi as wan, and 5ghz wifi as wan. in some locations i have all three WANs and in some I only have one, in others maybe two. My goal is to have good quick internet no matter the WAN source/quality.

Thanks for the reply. Will do some testing with traffic distribution: lowest latency and see how it works. Thanks.

1 Like