<?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: 5900 appliance core split between CoreXL and SXL in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5593#M205</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;BTW, thanks for the book - got i as soon as it came out &lt;img id="smileyhappy" class="emoticon emoticon-smileyhappy" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.png" alt="Smiley Happy" title="Smiley Happy" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:10:54 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-08-24T07:10:54Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>5900 appliance core split between CoreXL and SXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5589#M201</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just want to hear other opinion. 5900 appliance comes with SMT enabled: 16 hyperthreaded cores that by default are split to 14 for CoreXL and 1 for SXL. We are planning to use 2x10Gb bond as a trunk to the core therefore I was thinking if it would be wiser to use two CPU cores for SXL (having additional redundancy/capacity in case one gets saturated) and leaving us with&amp;nbsp;12 hyperthreaded cores for CoreXL. Before you ask - I have no idea about throughput levels - it will be deployed as a new segmentation firewall so we have no idea what to expect. Guestimate so far couple of gig. And blade wise we won't go nuts from the start - FW/IPS/AntiBot/IA most likely.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:54:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5589#M201</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-23T16:54:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 5900 appliance core split between CoreXL and SXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5590#M202</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't have any experience with the new 5900 model yet but are you sure it has 8 physical cores hyperthreaded to 16?&amp;nbsp; That seems like a lot for that appliance level and Oliver Fink has not yet updated the specs for the 5900 here:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://lwf.fink.sh/tag/tobias-lachmann" target="_blank"&gt;https://lwf.fink.sh/tag/tobias-lachmann&lt;/A&gt;/&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Providing the output of "cat /proc/cpuinfo" to the website above would help.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; What code version are you planning to use, R77.30 or R80.10?&amp;nbsp; That will make a big difference.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Assuming it does have 8 physical cores it should have a default 2/6 split that extends to 4/12 with hyperthreading enabled.&amp;nbsp; Systems that have a lot of PXL/F2F traffic are good candidates for Hyperthreading, depending on your IPS Profile (especially if using Default_Protection) you may have lots of traffic being accelerated and handled via the SNDs in which case enabling Hyperthreading can actually hurt performance.&amp;nbsp; Tough to say what will happen until you put it into production and see how traffic is getting handled with "fwaccel stats -s".&amp;nbsp; Enabling Hyperthreading is not necessarily a no-brainer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Based on your post, I'd say try a 3/5 split w/ no hyperthreading initially and assess traffic acceleration levels; any time multiple 10gig interfaces are involved you may need to enable Multi-Queue and/or increase SND cores.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;--&lt;BR /&gt; My book "Max Power: Check Point Firewall Performance Optimization" &lt;BR /&gt; now available via &lt;A href="http://maxpowerfirewalls.com" target="_blank"&gt;http://maxpowerfirewalls.com&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 19:19:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5590#M202</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-23T19:19:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 5900 appliance core split between CoreXL and SXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5591#M203</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;As Tim has suggested, it will depend on the amount of accelerated traffic (which you can monitor using "fwaccel stats -s").&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;If most of the traffic is going to be inspected by Anti-Bot and IPS, it probably will be handled by the CoreXL fw workers, and the initial configuration may be fine. If there is a lot of FW-only traffic, then you will probably need to allocate more CPU resources to SND. Also, in this case as you have 10Gbps interfaces, monitor the usage of the CPU assigned to each physical interface, and enable multiqueue if the CPU usage is high. If you expect a lot of FW-only traffic through each physical interface, I would consider enabling multiqueue from the beginning.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:43:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5591#M203</guid>
      <dc:creator>Victor_MR</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-24T06:43:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 5900 appliance core split between CoreXL and SXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5592#M204</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for prompt reply guys. Taking all opinions and information that we have regarding traffic profile and volumes (hardly any..) in consideration we went with 4/12 split.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One thing that I have been told by checkpoint is that there is no real gain in performance using hyperthreading for SND so you may as well just use the "primary" core. That's why I mentioned 2/12 split in the original post, should have said that. In 5900 case core 0 is HTed to 0+8 and 1 to 1+9. So for SND affinity I use only 0 and 1 leaving 8 and 9 unused:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;[Expert@firewall:0]# fw ctl affinity -l&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth1-01: CPU 0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth1-02: CPU 1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth1-03: CPU 0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth1-04: CPU 1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth1: CPU 1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth5: CPU 1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth2: CPU 0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth6: CPU 0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth3: CPU 1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth7: CPU 1&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;eth4: CPU 0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Mgmt: CPU 0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_0: CPU 15&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_1: CPU 7&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_2: CPU 14&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_3: CPU 6&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_4: CPU 13&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_5: CPU 5&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_6: CPU 12&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_7: CPU 4&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_8: CPU 11&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_9: CPU 3&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_10: CPU 10&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: 'courier new', courier, monospace; font-size: 13px;"&gt;Kernel fw_11: CPU 2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This theory should stand as the default affinity settings shipped with the box with 2/14 split only used core 0 for SND. The "twin" core 8 was left unsed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Definitely can update core info on Tobias site &lt;img id="smileyhappy" class="emoticon emoticon-smileyhappy" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.png" alt="Smiley Happy" title="Smiley Happy" /&gt;&amp;nbsp;- sinc I have used it a lot myself in past when planning firewall purchases.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:57:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5592#M204</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-24T06:57:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 5900 appliance core split between CoreXL and SXL</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5593#M205</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;BTW, thanks for the book - got i as soon as it came out &lt;img id="smileyhappy" class="emoticon emoticon-smileyhappy" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.png" alt="Smiley Happy" title="Smiley Happy" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:10:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/5900-appliance-core-split-between-CoreXL-and-SXL/m-p/5593#M205</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kaspars_Zibarts</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-24T07:10:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

