<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Cluster Performance Question in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/69620#M11969</link>
    <description>The performance hit is mainly relevant in Load Sharing clusters, not Active/Standby/Standby configurations.</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2019 08:54:06 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-12-08T08:54:06Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cluster Performance Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/68995#M11967</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I seem to recall hearing some time ago that there was a performance hit for the more cluster members you added to a cluster.&amp;nbsp; Is this still an issue in R80.30?&amp;nbsp; (or was it ever an issue?!)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a cluster of two gateways, and want to add a 3rd cluster member in my DR site, so all the interfaces would be trunked via a 10gb circuit between the main office and the DR site, and the ISP can route the public IP's to the DR site if the primary site went down.&amp;nbsp; Latency over the circuit is very low.&amp;nbsp; Are there any other performance type issues that might trip me up?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2019 09:58:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/68995#M11967</guid>
      <dc:creator>biskit</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-02T09:58:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster Performance Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/69009#M11968</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would rather assume that what you remember is mainly valid in LS clustering for the pivot member, as we read in&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;ClusterXL&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Advanced Technical&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Reference Guide&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;In &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;ClusterXL &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Load Sharing mode, configuring more than 4 members significantly &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;decreases cluster performance due to amount of Delta Sync.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2019 12:43:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/69009#M11968</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-02T12:43:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster Performance Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/69620#M11969</link>
      <description>The performance hit is mainly relevant in Load Sharing clusters, not Active/Standby/Standby configurations.</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2019 08:54:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/69620#M11969</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-08T08:54:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster Performance Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/69638#M11970</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;As &lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/7"&gt;@PhoneBoy&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;has already said, this is no problem with a HA ClusterXL. We have it with several customers so in use. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Note only the time of the ccp packets. It should be only 100 ms.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Furthermore I would not enable the encryption of ccp packets at R80.30 if you use 3 gateways.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;More read here:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-30-ClusterXL-CCP-Encryption/td-p/41528" target="_self"&gt;R80.30 ClusterXL CCP Encryption&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Dec 2019 15:26:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Cluster-Performance-Question/m-p/69638#M11970</guid>
      <dc:creator>HeikoAnkenbrand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-08T15:26:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

