Local system fail-over

In Progress

Comments

13 comments

  • Official comment
    Avatar
    Sergey Bystrov

    Hm, that is strange.

    Server B takes can take over cameras from server A only if server B has access(can discover) to cameras form server A.
    At least it should be so.

    Unless your cameras assigned public IP, it should not be the case..

    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    tolga altun

    Hi Matthews,

    I believe it is possible with the current system. While you are enabling the failover on each location be sure that you are choosing the cameras belonging to that building from failover priority. In case of a failure, that server will only take the cameras belonging to that building. As you said, local severs will fail over to other local server by this way.

     

    Cheers

    Tolga

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tagir Gadelshin

    Matthew Fox
    hi, thanks for the feedback!

    yeah, I was going to say the same thing, about the failover priority feature that we have.

    you can find detailed instructions here: https://support.networkoptix.com/hc/en-us/articles/216113287-Automatic-Camera-Failover

    Let me know if have more questions about this

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Matthew Fox

    The method mentioned above does work, but it is universal for all servers in that Hive (or that are merged together).  So if i have 5 servers at one site, this works great. 

    If i have 5 sets of two servers, each set at a different site, it does not work for only the local servers at a single site to fail over only to each other.  It will work if i want to pretend they are all on one site, but that is not the case... There doesn't seem to be a way to get only certain servers to failover to other certain servers once merged.  It's all or nothing.  I would just like to be able to allow for multiple failover options.

    I did a screen capture video of what i am talking about.  

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1ybm091d1qd18t/Failover.avi?dl=0

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    tolga altun

    Hi Matthew,

    That should work. For example, you have 2 sites. When you are configuring the failover priority on Server one. You should change the priority of server 3 and 4 cameras to "Never".  By this way, failure of server 3 and 4 will be ignored by server1. You should apply the same settings to all servers. 

     

    Site1: server1 and server2

    Site2: server3 and Server4

    If it is not working this way, maybe you should open a support ticket. Please keep us posted here if you find a solution to this 

    Cheers

    Tolga

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tagir Gadelshin

    tolga altun
    Matthew Fox is right

    Currently, Failover priority works for the whole system, so you can't assign different priorities for different servers. I was confused with this also, sorry for that.

    This feature supposed to be used as a tool for determining the most important cameras that should stay online, displacing other, low-prio cameras (when there are not enough slots on failover servers). So you can set priority to camera only, not to each Camera-Server pair.

    But the idea of determining which server should be chosen for failover is great, and we'll consider adding it it in our roadmap. It won't be in the next release, but can be included in one of our future versions.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tagir Gadelshin

    Maybe it won’t be a setting, but an improvement of auto-determining, so failover will choose closer servers first
    At least this sounds easier for the users and easier for the implementation as well

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tagir Gadelshin

    Matthew Fox
    tolga altun

    one more thing that came to my mind. As a temporary solution, for the time being, you can isolate cameras from remote servers. Make cameras from one site not discoverable by other (remote) servers. I think there are several methods of doing it via the network configuration. 

    This way cameras should "jump" only to local servers

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    tolga altun

    Hi  Tagir,

    You are definitely right however having this kind of tricky setups with enterprise-level customers is not the best or suggested practice. Also, that will bring an extra amount of troubleshooting load in case of a problem.  I was always assuming that the failover feature was working as I described. Which allows having local failover functionality on multiple sites under a single system. Looking forward to seeing that feature will be available in upcoming releases.

     

    Regards

    Tolga 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Sergey Bystrov

    Togla, 


    Server B takes can take over cameras from server A only if server B has access(can discover) to cameras from server A.
    At least it should be so.

    Unless your cameras assigned public IP(or some cross site VPN) , it should not be the case..

    Can you confirm that in your case Server B  has access to cameras form server A even if they are not in the same local network? Can it be changed? (all that needed to be done there is no multicast allowed between A<=>B).

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Andrew Sharrem

    If you remove the default gateway from the cameras, they will only fail-over to a local server on the same subnet.

    The downside is remote access to the camera from outside the subnet. This is somewhat relieved from Nx's new camera web page feature or by having remote access to a local PC.

    Removing the default gateway from any network device makes even the most insecure device exponentially more secure.

    Kind of takes care of the whole china / usa devices spying issue doesn't it?

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    tolga altun

    Hi Sergey,

    You and Andrew both right to limit the network for limited discovery. These are all good ideas as a workaround(I personally dont prefer to apply it). However, I am not speaking about a specific project. This is a new feature idea I believe will bring value to NX. In this way you can easily manage multiple sites under a single system.

    Cheers

    Tolga

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Matthew Fox

    Yea, i am not going to mess with the routing.  I will wait until a fix. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.