<?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: CoreXL connections not distributed correctly between the cores in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-connections-not-distributed-correctly-between-the-cores/m-p/114144#M15949</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Tim,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As there does not appear to be a way to use SNMP to monitor a specific VS CPU usage (not that I can see, easily using enterprise standard tools) , I was wondering how we can actually confirm how many CPUs to actually allocated a VS?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Using 'fw ctl multik stat', looking at the peaks connections are there any guidelines to determine recommended peaks/connections per core?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Lets say I've allocated 10 cores to a VS and top is reporting 600% utilisation, does this mean I can safely reduce the cores down to 8 (leaving 2 cores for spikes)?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Without history graphing is seems almost impossible to balance the right number of cores and forward plan core requirements.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 17:29:16 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-03-20T17:29:16Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CoreXL connections not distributed correctly between the cores</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-connections-not-distributed-correctly-between-the-cores/m-p/98568#M10352</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Experts,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yesterday we had an issue where the connections were not distributed correctly by the CoreXL.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;High CPU was noticed in few cores, and after checking fw ctl multik we saw that coreXL was distributing only the connections to a few cores and not to all.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The issue was solved by rebooting the firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible to know the reason of the issue and can it happen again?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have attached output for fw ctl multik before the reboot, and more commands after the reboot.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are running R80.30&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 15:30:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-connections-not-distributed-correctly-between-the-cores/m-p/98568#M10352</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dyslexic155</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-10-08T15:30:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CoreXL connections not distributed correctly between the cores</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-connections-not-distributed-correctly-between-the-cores/m-p/98581#M10353</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This is a known issue fixed in R80.30 Jumbo HFA Take 219+, a workaround is also available as described here:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="cp_link sc_ellipsis" href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk168513&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=CoreXL" target="_blank"&gt;sk168513: CPU consuming on some instances is high after installing R80.30 Jumbo Hotfix Accumulator Take 210 or higher&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 17:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-connections-not-distributed-correctly-between-the-cores/m-p/98581#M10353</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-10-08T17:16:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CoreXL connections not distributed correctly between the cores</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-connections-not-distributed-correctly-between-the-cores/m-p/114144#M15949</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Tim,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As there does not appear to be a way to use SNMP to monitor a specific VS CPU usage (not that I can see, easily using enterprise standard tools) , I was wondering how we can actually confirm how many CPUs to actually allocated a VS?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Using 'fw ctl multik stat', looking at the peaks connections are there any guidelines to determine recommended peaks/connections per core?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Lets say I've allocated 10 cores to a VS and top is reporting 600% utilisation, does this mean I can safely reduce the cores down to 8 (leaving 2 cores for spikes)?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Without history graphing is seems almost impossible to balance the right number of cores and forward plan core requirements.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 17:29:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-connections-not-distributed-correctly-between-the-cores/m-p/114144#M15949</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-20T17:29:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

