<?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: VSX Tuning Question in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111491#M15411</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;At least its an option on the table to try.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:01:18 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-02-22T11:01:18Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/88696#M8962</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;Hi Guys,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have found many interesting articles about VSX&amp;nbsp;tuning here in the forum:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.checkpoint.com%2Ft5%2FVSX%2FInterface-Affinity-with-VSX%2Ftd-p%2F51136&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7Cheiko.ankenbrand%40axians.de%7Ce28f0968f45e4e50ebff08d810a24dcb%7Ccae7d06108f340dd80c33c0b8889224a%7C0%7C0%7C637277636570749319&amp;amp;sdata=OxqzJxyJEwqj76ZK1SGo25yZjcvyPYn3Wdx423qZSVM%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/VSX/Interface-Affinity-with-VSX/td-p/51136&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.checkpoint.com%2Ffyrhh23835%2Fattachments%2Ffyrhh23835%2Fmember-exclusives%2F224%2F1%2FVSX%2520performance%2520optimisation.pdf&amp;amp;data=02%7C01%7Cheiko.ankenbrand%40axians.de%7Ce28f0968f45e4e50ebff08d810a24dcb%7Ccae7d06108f340dd80c33c0b8889224a%7C0%7C0%7C637277636570759317&amp;amp;sdata=Bn4iG0Qsdfcdi37e%2BjOfrWVMgOHAtPSh%2B9yU7B0yQN0%3D&amp;amp;reserved=0" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.checkpoint.com/fyrhh23835/attachments/fyrhh23835/member-exclusives/224/1/VSX%20performance%20optimisation.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I understand that, but how exactly do I set this up under VSV and which CLI commands do I have to use?&lt;BR /&gt;Is here a sample file that allows me to set the SecureXL and CoreXL instances?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example, how do I set Multiqueueing/SecureXL for Core 0,1,2,3,17,18,19,20 and CoreXL for VS1 to Core 4,5,21,22&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Which CLI commands do I have to use to make the settings permanent?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;BR /&gt;Christian&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:14:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/88696#M8962</guid>
      <dc:creator>Christian_Wagen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-06-15T20:14:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/88725#M8963</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/22473"&gt;@Christian_Wagen&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Knowledgebase and documentation will be your friend to solve such questions. You can find your answers here:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk153373" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;Multi-Queue Management for Check Point R80.30 with Gaia 3.10 kernel&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk105261" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;CoreXL Dynamic Dispatcher in R77.30 / R80.10 and above&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk98348" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;Best Practices - Security Gateway Performance&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;(Part &lt;A class="checkpoint_toggle" target="_blank"&gt;(6-2-B) Show / Hide CoreXL syntax - in VSX mode&lt;/A&gt;)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:05:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/88725#M8963</guid>
      <dc:creator>Wolfgang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-06-16T06:05:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/88726#M8964</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It depends little on SW release as MQ commands have changed in R80.30.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You would need to provide more details regarding interfaces to give you exact commands for SXL and MQ - which will use MQ and which SXL and how loaded are they. Commads in principle&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT face="courier new,courier"&gt;fw ctl affinity -s&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT face="courier new,courier"&gt;mq_mng&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT face="courier new,courier"&gt;cpmq&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As for CoreXL it's more straight forward.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT face="courier new,courier"&gt;fw ctl affinity -s -d -vsid 1 -cpu 4 5 21 22&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:41:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/88726#M8964</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-06-16T06:41:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111026#M15296</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Guys,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has anyone come across this which is related to R80.40 tuning and if so has anyone actually done this and seen any improvements?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The list of Microsoft domains that will be queried&amp;nbsp;from the updatable objects for Microsoft Office365:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="https://endpoints.office.com/endpoints/worldwide?clientrequestid=b10c5ed1-bad1-445f-b386-b919946339a7" target="_blank"&gt;https://endpoints.office.com/endpoints/worldwide?clientrequestid=b10c5ed1-bad1-445f-b386-b919946339a7&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;The domains being queried&amp;nbsp;are on this list.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Requests are doubled by adding www. prefix to each query causing alot of NXDomain result.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;This can be fix this with a kernel parameter to prevent these lookups:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;To prevent nxdomain set kernel&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;add_www_prefix_to_domain_name to 0 on the fly:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;fw ctl set int&amp;nbsp;add_www_prefix_to_domain_name 0&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;And to make the change permanent (survive reboot) add a line to&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;$FWDIR/boot/modules/fwkern.conf:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;add_www_prefix_to_domain_name=0&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;And, to further reduce the queries you can consider modifying&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;EM&gt;rad_kernel_domain_cache_refresh_interval&lt;/EM&gt;&amp;nbsp;to double it's current value.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;By doing these changes you could reduce the queries related to FQDN domain objects + updatable objects, to approximately 25% of&amp;nbsp;their current level.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:44:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111026#M15296</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T09:44:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111027#M15297</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I actually feel fairly happy now since DNS requests are sent only from one CoreXL core instead of all. So the 25% saving isn't a major problem atm for us.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Finally rolled out T91 on our VSX two nights ago and currently verifying efficiency of passive DNS learning that's used to improve wildcard domains in updatable objects. So far looking good!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:07:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111027#M15297</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T10:07:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111031#M15298</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Since going to R80.40 with T91 we have seen better core utilisation and majority of issues seen in R80.20 have gone, however we are still plagued with bursts of latency which we still have not got to the bottom of.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hence looking at all avenues of tuning.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:53:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111031#M15298</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T10:53:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111033#M15299</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;How do you observe latency btw? We had lots of issues with our 26k VSX due to RX ring buffer size and also our Cisco core honoring TX pause frames sent by FW. We ended up turning off flow control and increasing RX buffer size&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:14:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111033#M15299</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T11:14:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111040#M15300</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;At the moment we have a couple of physical boxes between DMZ in two different VSs on the same appliance do health check pings, we have seen this go from response times of xx to xxx and even xxxx and there is no real sense to it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm convinced its relate to load and not enough CPU power to move the traffic through fast enough.&amp;nbsp; The traffic is coming across our 10G links and the RX ring size is 3072.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:09:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111040#M15300</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T13:09:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111041#M15301</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;very odd ring size btw, shouldn't it be 2^ i.e 1024, 2048, 4096?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;check your switch port counters for tx/rx pause frames&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:25:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111041#M15301</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T13:25:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111046#M15302</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Can really see an issue on the switchport stats:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Port-channelx is up, line protocol is up (connected)&lt;BR /&gt;Hardware is EtherChannel, address is 70db.987c.cf02 (bia 70db.987c.cf02)&lt;BR /&gt;MTU 1500 bytes, BW 20000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,&lt;BR /&gt;reliability 255/255, txload 3/255, rxload 6/255&lt;BR /&gt;Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set&lt;BR /&gt;Keepalive set (10 sec)&lt;BR /&gt;Full-duplex, 10Gb/s, media type is N/A&lt;BR /&gt;input flow-control is on, output flow-control is unsupported&lt;BR /&gt;Members in this channel: Te3/3 Te4/3&lt;BR /&gt;ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00&lt;BR /&gt;Last input never, output never, output hang never&lt;BR /&gt;Last clearing of "show interface" counters 4w2d&lt;BR /&gt;Input queue: 0/2000/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 2&lt;BR /&gt;Queueing strategy: fifo&lt;BR /&gt;Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)&lt;BR /&gt;30 second input rate 518857000 bits/sec, 112327 packets/sec&lt;BR /&gt;30 second output rate 265545000 bits/sec, 100090 packets/sec&lt;BR /&gt;104738914441 packets input, 74668261892153 bytes, 0 no buffer&lt;BR /&gt;Received 90219610 broadcasts (84792897 multicasts)&lt;BR /&gt;0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles&lt;BR /&gt;6 input errors, 5 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored&lt;BR /&gt;0 input packets with dribble condition detected&lt;BR /&gt;93610942452 packets output, 52207415240111 bytes, 0 underruns&lt;BR /&gt;0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets&lt;BR /&gt;0 unknown protocol drops&lt;BR /&gt;0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred&lt;BR /&gt;0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier&lt;BR /&gt;0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out&lt;BR /&gt;--------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;TenGigabitEthernet3/3 is up, line protocol is up (connected)&lt;BR /&gt;Hardware is Ten Gigabit Ethernet Port, address is 70db.987c.cf02 (bia 70db.987c.cf02)&lt;BR /&gt;MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,&lt;BR /&gt;reliability 255/255, txload 3/255, rxload 7/255&lt;BR /&gt;Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set&lt;BR /&gt;Keepalive set (10 sec)&lt;BR /&gt;Full-duplex, 10Gb/s, link type is auto, media type is 10GBase-SR&lt;BR /&gt;input flow-control is on, output flow-control is on&lt;BR /&gt;ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00&lt;BR /&gt;Last input 00:00:09, output never, output hang never&lt;BR /&gt;Last clearing of "show interface" counters 4w2d&lt;BR /&gt;Input queue: 0/2000/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 10&lt;BR /&gt;Queueing strategy: fifo&lt;BR /&gt;Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)&lt;BR /&gt;30 second input rate 300241000 bits/sec, 66998 packets/sec&lt;BR /&gt;30 second output rate 142683000 bits/sec, 51599 packets/sec&lt;BR /&gt;59057703735 packets input, 42452892002095 bytes, 0 no buffer&lt;BR /&gt;Received 65049344 broadcasts (59840885 multicasts)&lt;BR /&gt;0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles&lt;BR /&gt;0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored&lt;BR /&gt;0 input packets with dribble condition detected&lt;BR /&gt;49083158628 packets output, 28965234988365 bytes, 0 underruns&lt;BR /&gt;0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets&lt;BR /&gt;0 unknown protocol drops&lt;BR /&gt;0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred&lt;BR /&gt;0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier&lt;BR /&gt;0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out&lt;BR /&gt;-------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;TenGigabitEthernet4/3 is up, line protocol is up (connected)&lt;BR /&gt;Hardware is Ten Gigabit Ethernet Port, address is 70db.987c.cf0a (bia 70db.987c.cf0a)&lt;BR /&gt;MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,&lt;BR /&gt;reliability 255/255, txload 3/255, rxload 6/255&lt;BR /&gt;Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set&lt;BR /&gt;Keepalive set (10 sec)&lt;BR /&gt;Full-duplex, 10Gb/s, link type is auto, media type is 10GBase-SR&lt;BR /&gt;input flow-control is on, output flow-control is on&lt;BR /&gt;ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00&lt;BR /&gt;Last input 00:00:01, output never, output hang never&lt;BR /&gt;Last clearing of "show interface" counters 4w2d&lt;BR /&gt;Input queue: 0/2000/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 15&lt;BR /&gt;Queueing strategy: fifo&lt;BR /&gt;Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)&lt;BR /&gt;30 second input rate 256706000 bits/sec, 48327 packets/sec&lt;BR /&gt;30 second output rate 147684000 bits/sec, 50826 packets/sec&lt;BR /&gt;45697398443 packets input, 32224952791572 bytes, 0 no buffer&lt;BR /&gt;Received 25182232 broadcasts (24962680 multicasts)&lt;BR /&gt;0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles&lt;BR /&gt;6 input errors, 5 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored&lt;BR /&gt;0 input packets with dribble condition detected&lt;BR /&gt;44543786394 packets output, 23247419066906 bytes, 0 underruns&lt;BR /&gt;0 output errors, 0 collisions, 1 interface resets&lt;BR /&gt;0 unknown protocol drops&lt;BR /&gt;0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred&lt;BR /&gt;0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier&lt;BR /&gt;0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Did also check flow_control on the checkpoint appliance:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;# ethtool -a eth3-01&lt;BR /&gt;Pause parameters for eth3-01:&lt;BR /&gt;Autonegotiate: off&lt;BR /&gt;RX: on&lt;BR /&gt;TX: on&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;# ethtool -a eth3-02&lt;BR /&gt;Pause parameters for eth3-02:&lt;BR /&gt;Autonegotiate: off&lt;BR /&gt;RX: on&lt;BR /&gt;TX: on&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;# ethtool -S eth3-02 | grep -i flow_control&lt;BR /&gt;tx_flow_control_xon: 5&lt;BR /&gt;rx_flow_control_xon: 0&lt;BR /&gt;tx_flow_control_xoff: 949&lt;BR /&gt;rx_flow_control_xoff: 0&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;# ethtool -S eth3-01 | grep -i flow_control&lt;BR /&gt;tx_flow_control_xon: 4&lt;BR /&gt;rx_flow_control_xon: 0&lt;BR /&gt;tx_flow_control_xoff: 726&lt;BR /&gt;rx_flow_control_xoff: 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;# netstat -ni&lt;BR /&gt;Kernel Interface table&lt;BR /&gt;Iface MTU Met RX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVR TX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP TX-OVR Flg&lt;BR /&gt;Mgmt 1500 0 81334370 0 0 0 220791303 0 0 0 BMsRU&lt;BR /&gt;Sync 1500 0 89840333 0 0 0 1214076035 0 0 0 BMsRU&lt;BR /&gt;bond0 1500 0 45908035350 0 104892 0 53128920091 0 0 0 BMmRU&lt;BR /&gt;bond1 1500 0 160720368 0 0 0 223132821 0 0 0 BMmRU&lt;BR /&gt;bond2 1500 0 489526962 0 0 0 1368598249 0 0 0 BMmRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth1-07 1500 0 399676323 0 0 0 154522202 0 0 0 BMsRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth1-08 1500 0 79384560 0 0 0 2341413 0 0 0 BMsRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth3-01 1500 0 22531934214 0 45033 0 26259792806 0 0 0 BMsRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth3-02 1500 0 23376087366 0 59859 0 26869129491 0 0 0 BMsRU&lt;BR /&gt;lo 65536 0 7158451 0 0 0 7158451 0 0 0 LNRU&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:14:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111046#M15302</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T14:14:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111049#M15303</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would start with RX ring buffer increase to 4096 and/or turning off flow control&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;ethtool -A&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;EM&gt;INTERFACE_NAME&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;rx off tx off&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;as said - we had extremely bursty traffic on our main bond to core (more or less all VLANs are connected over that bond) and rx pause frames caused total stop in traffic that transpired in delayed ping packets for example, up to 2secs...&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;how's CPU load for MQ for those interfaces?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:36:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111049#M15303</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T14:36:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111050#M15304</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Although I didn't state this explicitly in my book, a power of 2 should always be used to size the ring buffers.&amp;nbsp; While it is not a strict requirement and will obviously work if a power of 2 sizing is not used, it will increase the overhead required to maintain and access the elements of the ring buffer.&amp;nbsp; See here for the rather technical explanation:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10527581/why-must-a-ring-buffer-size-be-a-power-of-2" target="_blank"&gt;https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10527581/why-must-a-ring-buffer-size-be-a-power-of-2&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:42:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111050#M15304</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T14:42:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111051#M15305</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks Tim&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:47:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111051#M15305</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T14:47:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111052#M15306</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks Kaspars.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Will certainly increase the ringsize 4096 and will try disabling the flow control.&amp;nbsp; SND load it between 35 -40%, current have 4 cores assigned to this.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:54:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111052#M15306</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T14:54:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111053#M15307</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Just to confirm - we saw massive improvement with R80.40 (before R80.30) - MQ improvements were massive. So make sure your MQ cores are not struggling too&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:52:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111053#M15307</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-17T14:52:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111359#M15376</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I put forward the suggestions to TAC, and they advised me not to turn of flow control on the interfaces, at this point they want to increase the core count on every VS to 22 via Smartconsole (we are not using manual affinity).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now this lead me to think about Tim's rule, "Thou must not allocate cores on a VS across physical cores"....This is the way&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":winking_face:"&gt;😉&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So my thoughts on this are, when allocating CPU cores via Smartconsole we are allocating virtual cores in usermode, however when doing manual affinity we are allocating cores in kernel mode, is my thinking correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If not why on earth would TAC tellme to allocate 22 cores per VS?&amp;nbsp; This would tellme it could do more harm then good.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thus far TAC have not answered my question regarding the below either:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;add_www_prefix_to_domain_name=0 (Default = 1)&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;rad_kernel_domain_cache_refresh_interval=120 (Default=60)&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2021 11:10:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111359#M15376</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-20T11:10:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111362#M15377</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The R80.40 VSX Administration Guide (CoreXL for Virtual Systems) indicates that assigning a number of cores per VS in the Smart Console actually creates an equal amount of copies of that VS without being limited by the number of CPU, but increasing memory usage.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:22:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111362#M15377</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alex-</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-20T12:22:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111364#M15378</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;So TAC are basically saying just allow all VSs to utilise all the cores as required by spawning equal number for fwk processes? (note that we purposely only using 22 cores out of the 31 total so we can allocate more SNDs).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any ideas on the additional parameters I've suggested?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:55:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111364#M15378</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-20T12:55:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111367#M15379</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I dont't know about the RAD parameters, but my understanding is as follows, CoreXL for VS other than VS0 is mainly there to increase parallel handling capacity at the expense of memory and they will use whatever CPU they have on the machine, hence the recommendation to not go over the number of physical cores.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now the guide also states that allocating too much instance can have a performance impact, I suppose due to resource mapping spread over a lot of instances.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since you're engaged with TAC, I would think they're the best positioned to provide you a definitive answer.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2021 13:14:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111367#M15379</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alex-</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-20T13:14:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX Tuning Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111472#M15404</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I understand why TAC is not recommending to turn off flow control. It all depends on your network design. Since we have our FW connected to the core in one big bond (80Gb) then sending TX pause requests from FW to core caused full traffic stop on ALL Vlans configured in that bond I'm afraid. And that resulted in massive ping delays appro every 5mins&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:32:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Tuning-Question/m-p/111472#M15404</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-22T07:32:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

