Local system fail-over
In ProgressThe "failover" works good for local systems. I have a customer with a merged system that has two servers per location. When merged (5 locations, 10 severs), the failover affects all servers which works fine if you have a ton of bandwidth. It would be nice if we could separate the servers so that local severs could fail over to other local server.
-
Official comment
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 -
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
-
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 -
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.
-
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
-
tolga altun
Matthew Fox is rightCurrently, 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. -
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 -
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
-
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). -
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?
-
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
-
Hi Sergey and Tagir,
I wanted to check if there is any update on the requested feature. There are multiple projects we are working on which requires failover on multiple locations but under the same system. I believe having this feature will help us and others a lot in managing the multilocation installation.
Regards
Tolga
-
Hi, tolga altun
We understand your eagerness to have this request implemented, and, as I said, we will try to implement this in one of our future releases.
But I won't expect it is coming next year, my best guess we will have to wait 1 year +. We always try to fulfill as many requests as possible, and we do improve our software significantly between releases. But I need to mention that as this particular issue can be solved using a network configuration, we don't treat it as a critical issue. Other important features have priority over it. -
improvements in auto-determining are planned for the future, but still, this won't come in a couple of releases at least (both releases are now in stabilization, we do not add new features there anymore).
Thanks! -
Hello Erhan Duman
Thanks for your question.
However feature's status hasn't changed since Tagir's last reply. We still don't have any deadlines when this feature is going to be implemented.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
19 comments