<?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: Interface utilization on some interfaces (No Rx Over) (Recommendation) in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Interface-utilization-on-some-interfaces-No-Rx-Over/m-p/110311#M15154</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Please provide the output of &lt;STRONG&gt;ethtool -S eth1-01&lt;/STRONG&gt; for further analysis.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;That interface seems to be handling the load just fine with negligible RX-DRPs and no other errors, what is your specific concern?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is that eth1-01 interface part of a bond and the traffic is not being distributed evenly between the physical interfaces of that bond of which eth1-01 is a part?&amp;nbsp; Can't really tell from what you have provided so far.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:06:17 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-02-09T14:06:17Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Interface utilization on some interfaces (No Rx Over) (Recommendation)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Interface-utilization-on-some-interfaces-No-Rx-Over/m-p/110259#M15143</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Team,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We come across to know that one interface is highly utilized.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Setup: 21400 Appliance with SAM Hardware (R80.10 OS)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4 SND and 8 Fw worker&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Only FW , Identity Awareness and Monitor Blade Enable.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;INTERFACE : 10G&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Interface 10G" style="width: 753px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/10499iFEBAC690549CD543/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Interface check 10G.png" alt="Interface 10G" /&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-caption" onclick="event.preventDefault();"&gt;Interface 10G&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Utilization taken from CPVIEW (eth1-01 utilized more)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="eth1-01 interface highly utiized" style="width: 746px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/10500i850D574B7EFC0CEE/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Interface over utilized.png" alt="eth1-01 interface highly utiized" /&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-caption" onclick="event.preventDefault();"&gt;eth1-01 interface highly utiized&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NO RX Over&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Rx over.png" style="width: 642px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/10501iCB5A1C3885382D4B/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Rx over.png" alt="Rx over.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We can see the interface is highly utilized but NO Rx Over .&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kindly suggested a solution for this&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 06:38:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Interface-utilization-on-some-interfaces-No-Rx-Over/m-p/110259#M15143</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chinmaya_Naik</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-09T06:38:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Interface utilization on some interfaces (No Rx Over) (Recommendation)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Interface-utilization-on-some-interfaces-No-Rx-Over/m-p/110311#M15154</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Please provide the output of &lt;STRONG&gt;ethtool -S eth1-01&lt;/STRONG&gt; for further analysis.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;That interface seems to be handling the load just fine with negligible RX-DRPs and no other errors, what is your specific concern?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is that eth1-01 interface part of a bond and the traffic is not being distributed evenly between the physical interfaces of that bond of which eth1-01 is a part?&amp;nbsp; Can't really tell from what you have provided so far.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 14:06:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Interface-utilization-on-some-interfaces-No-Rx-Over/m-p/110311#M15154</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-09T14:06:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Interface utilization on some interfaces (No Rx Over) (Recommendation)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Interface-utilization-on-some-interfaces-No-Rx-Over/m-p/110400#M15163</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Slight tangent here but which Jumbo version is installed and what are your acceleration stats like?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Note with R80.20 and above SAM cards are disabled and R80.10 will reach end of support in May 2021.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2021 08:08:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Interface-utilization-on-some-interfaces-No-Rx-Over/m-p/110400#M15163</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-10T08:08:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

