Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 5364 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Cloning a Virtual Web Server changes the order of servers in both the New and Old Site Path Route object

TimBoggs

 

I have a Site Path Route object configured for "Enable Host Standby". The real web servers are configured in this order:

 

ServerFTW - Primary

ServerDAL - Standby

 

When I clone the Virtual Webserver Object, it created a new Site Path Route. The order of the real web servers then changes to:

 

ServerDAL - Primary

ServerFTW - Standby

 

This is not optimal. However, it gets worse because the original Site Path Route that was cloned also has the order of servers changed. I have been able to reproduce the issue consistently on both build 9.408-4 and 9.406-3. I have not tested different scenarios, but it appears to always order them alphabetically.

I am going to open a trouble ticket to report it, but thought it might be good to have the issue explained here also since this could cause an interruption of service.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    I was just doing further testing and every time I edited the Virtual Web Server object, it modified the order of the real web servers in the site path route. I don't think it takes effect immediately because I haven't had any issues reported. But this is very annoying.

  • 0 in reply to TimBoggs

    Tim, the Real Servers are not in an ordered list.  If you have more than one associated to a Site-Path, they are used in a round-robin fashion.  I'm not sure why the order in the list changes, but does knowing that the order changes nothing solve your problem?

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
Reply
  • 0 in reply to TimBoggs

    Tim, the Real Servers are not in an ordered list.  If you have more than one associated to a Site-Path, they are used in a round-robin fashion.  I'm not sure why the order in the list changes, but does knowing that the order changes nothing solve your problem?

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
Children
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson

    When you use "Enable hot-standby mode" it is an ordered list. I choose the order and on the Site Path Routing object, the second server is identified as "Standby".

    From the UTM Help file:

    Real Webservers: Select the checkboxes in front of the real webservers which are to be used for the specified path. The order of the selected webservers is only relevant for the Enable hot-standby mode option. With the sort icons you can change the order.

    Enable hot-standby mode: Select this option if you want to send all requests to the first selected real webserver, and use the other webservers only as a backup. The backup servers are only used in case the main server fails. As soon as the main server is back working, the sessions will switch back—unless you selected the Enable sticky session cookie option.

    With that feature enabled, modifying the Virtual Server alters the order, which potentially makes the standby primary. This is a bug in their code and should be fixed.

  • 0 in reply to TimBoggs

    Ahhh - you're right, I'd forgotten that they added that because I've not used it.  I agree that it's a bug.  Do you have a paid license so that you could get a ticket open with Sophos Support?

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson

    I have opened a ticket but wanted to post here as more of a PSA to let others know. I can see modifying the VWS as being an issue, but I would never expect cloning to actually modify the source object. Let alone a sub-object of the source object that you wouldn't see unless you looked for it.

Unfiltered HTML