<?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: High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator) in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/156767#M27057</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/64803"&gt;@AaronCP&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;and&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/16983"&gt;@Sorin_Gogean&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;Thankyou very much for the suggestion&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As per TAC suggestion and Answer of our query :&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;If we add the top connections to the SecureXL Fast Accelerator is there going to be any impact on the 2 SND cores, because at the time of High CPU utilization observed the SND cores CPU utilization is around 40-50% ?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde" color="#00FF00"&gt;Answer&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/U&gt;:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;There is going to be no impact on the SNDs due to fastaccel, as there is no inspection for this affected traffic&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;So as per my Plane of action also the same BUT&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;Now we face the&amp;nbsp;high&lt;STRONG&gt; CPU utilization&amp;nbsp;in SND&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;core because as we added the high CPU utilization connection into the&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;SecureXL Fast Accelerator.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV class=""&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="image.png" style="width: 871px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/17707iB7BAE84356EBE55F/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="image.png" alt="image.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Now instead&amp;nbsp;of CoreXL_FW now CoreXL_SND take high CPU so to overcome the issue we prepare&amp;nbsp;a next POA :&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Manual configuration of CoreXL Firewall and SND instances so for this 4 for SND and for&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;firewall workers.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;OR :&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;dynamic_split :&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT color="#5f6368"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;On Check Point Appliances, R80.40 added the ability to change the number of CoreXLClosed Firewall and SND instances without reboot (Dynamic Split). Like&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;performance-enhancing daemon that&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;balances the load between CoreXL SNDs and CoreXL Firewalls&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;It dynamically changes the split between CoreXL SNDs and CoreXL Firewalls&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;As this dynamic_split disabled by default&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;As Check&amp;nbsp;Point does&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;not recommend manual configuration&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;of CoreXL Firewall and SND instances, because such configuration disables the CoreXL Dynamic Split so t&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;o enable the CoreXL Dynamic Split again, you must disable it and enable it.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Supported Models : 5000 series: 5600,&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;5800&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;and 5900&lt;BR /&gt;Our GiftCity Appliance&lt;STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;: CPAP-SG5800-NGTP&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;which supports&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Dynamic split .&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;For&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;SecureXL Fast Accelerator Query :&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If we added some connections in the&amp;nbsp; SecureXL Fast Accelerator then is there any chance that only a few connections have already been added but any chance of&amp;nbsp;not going through&amp;nbsp;the SecureXL Fast Accelerator path ?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Is it&amp;nbsp;possible to add the overall Subnet into the&amp;nbsp; SecureXL Fast Accelerator instead&amp;nbsp;of adding any particular source and destination ? (Still not try but any one already try )&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If reboot the firewall then still the&amp;nbsp;Firewall FAST Accel table connection list exists or removed automatically ?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Kindly consider&amp;nbsp;both and provide the recommande solution Checkmates Team,&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Regards&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2022 16:46:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Chinmaya_Naik</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-09-07T16:46:03Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155791#M26567</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Hello Checkmate Team,&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;We suddenly see CPU utilization during the morning 5 AM to 8 AM time only.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;The&amp;nbsp;multiple &lt;STRONG&gt;fw_worker&lt;/STRONG&gt; take high CPU but not impact the SND core utlization&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;Total Core : 8 core (2 SND and 6 &lt;SPAN&gt;fw_worker&lt;/SPAN&gt;)&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;So we checked the TOP connection by referring&lt;STRONG&gt; CPVIEW utility&lt;/STRONG&gt; output &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;As we get to know that a Auto Backup solution like Backup Server take more CPU because that Auto Backup is start working during the time of issue because during the time it’s take backup file from multiple of devices which connected or like integrated with Backup Server.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;This issue we observed when this newly implemented BACKUP Solution is start working &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Now find below about Solution&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;/U&gt;:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;First we need to know that the TOP connection is going to which path like &lt;STRONG&gt;Accelerated Path&lt;/STRONG&gt; , &lt;STRONG&gt;medium Path&lt;/STRONG&gt; or &lt;STRONG&gt;Slow&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;STRONG&gt;Path&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;For this we run &lt;STRONG&gt;cpkstat Utility&lt;/STRONG&gt; during the time of high CPU to know which path that go through.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Few Backup connections are triggered and all are in same Medium Path only (&lt;STRONG&gt;F2P&lt;/STRONG&gt;)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Refer : &lt;STRONG&gt;sk103212&lt;/STRONG&gt; (Traffic analysis using the 'CPMonitor' tool) to known the high CPU utlization connection PATH.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;The next Solution we planned to implemented that is to put that &lt;STRONG&gt;F2P&lt;/STRONG&gt; connection to(SecureXL&lt;STRONG&gt; Fast Accelerato&lt;/STRONG&gt;r (&lt;STRONG&gt;fw fast_accel&lt;/STRONG&gt;)) to reduce the CPU utilisation beacuse in the Fast Accelator no inspection is performed like&amp;nbsp;trusted connections to allow bypassing deep packet inspection&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Refer SK : &lt;STRONG&gt;sk156672 &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Now one query is come that why we put that connection without any Inspection ? :&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT color="#339966"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde" color="#00FF00"&gt;Answer &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/U&gt;:&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;/FONT&gt;We assured that the connection is legitimate and as its for the backup process only so no need Inspection on this.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;If we add the top connections to the SecureXL Fast Accelerator is there going to be any impact on the 2 SND cores, because at the time of High CPU utilization observed the SND cores CPU utilization is around 40-50% ?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde" color="#00FF00"&gt;Answer &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/U&gt;:&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;/FONT&gt;There is going to be no impact on the SNDs due to fastaccel, as there is no inspection for this affected traffic&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;if some particular connection is already accelerated then can we add those connections in SecureXL Fast Accelerator then is there any impact ?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde" color="#00FF00"&gt;Answer &lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/U&gt;:&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;/FONT&gt;No Impact &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Hi Team Let me know if some point answer I updated on above is &lt;STRONG&gt;correct or anything wrong ?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;My Plan of ACTION&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;/U&gt;: &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Base on &lt;STRONG&gt;sk156672&lt;/STRONG&gt; which I refer : &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;1. &lt;STRONG&gt;fw ctl fast_accel enable&lt;/STRONG&gt; (Set feature state to on)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;2. &lt;STRONG&gt;fw ctl fast_accel show_table&lt;/STRONG&gt; (Display the rules configured by the user)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;3.&lt;STRONG&gt; fw ctl fast_accel show_state&lt;/STRONG&gt; (Display the current feature state)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;4.&lt;STRONG&gt; fw ctl fast_accel add 1.1.1.1 2.2.2.0/24 80 6&lt;/STRONG&gt; (Example IP address and Port number with TCP or UDP protocol)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;5.&lt;STRONG&gt; fw ctl fast_accel delete 192.168.0.0/16 any 8080 17&lt;/STRONG&gt; (Example IP address and Port number with TCP or UDP protocol&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;6. Verify using cpview utility :&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Chinmaya_Naik_0-1661533034800.jpeg" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/17590i5530B7900EF41431/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Chinmaya_Naik_0-1661533034800.jpeg" alt="Chinmaya_Naik_0-1661533034800.jpeg" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;So base on our issue I need to add the Backup Server IP address which basically the Destination IP address and also revert the traffic.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Like for example :&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Backup Server IP address : x.x.x.x/24&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Backup Server Listing PORT : TCP 1667&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Command :&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;fw ctl fast_accel add x.x.x.x/24 1667 6&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;FONT color="#800000"&gt;Kindly suggested that above command is correct or not OR also can I need to add the source IP address also OR source and destination IP address are must be included base on the SK ?&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF6600"&gt;Also I plan to added in only Active gateway for testing so incase if any urganet I will fail-over the gateway so kindly update that is this possible that we can use for Active gateway if we using Cluster then&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Also Suggest Any Alternative to resolved the High CPU utlization issue .&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Regards&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:40:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155791#M26567</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chinmaya_Naik</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-26T17:40:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155798#M26570</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think your plan to add the rule to the active gateway for testing, then failing over to the standby if necessary is a sensible approach.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've just double-checked the command you've listed against the SK and I believe a source and destination IP is required (subnet is optional) in the rule as per section 5 (see attached screenshot), so you will want to tweak your add/delete commands to reflect the correct source IPs/networks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We saw a similar utilisation issue with our backups, and the fast_accel mechanism worked a treat. As per the SK, connections in the slow path will not be accelerated by this feature, so you will want to confirm the backup connections are being accelerated before implementing this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2022 21:35:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155798#M26570</guid>
      <dc:creator>AaronCP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-26T21:35:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155802#M26571</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/64803"&gt;@AaronCP&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for the update.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes I agree that in the sk below details also mention and subnet is optional but if someone implemente without source beacuse in our case source is multiple.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="section5.jpg" style="width: 644px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/17593i6DC87F9D8929DBCF/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="section5.jpg" alt="section5.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Okay but will add both source and destination and check the result of utlization.&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;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2022 22:59:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155802#M26571</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chinmaya_Naik</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-26T22:59:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155811#M26575</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;hello&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;we're using fast_accell rules, and I can tell you that not all the traffic is accelerable&amp;nbsp;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":expressionless_face:"&gt;😑&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;search the community, as there was a post explaining how you can look the connections and see what's accelerable and what's not .&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;in your command you require source and destination specified, at least we're doing it that way.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;why you can't specify the source in your case? don't you have a private range that would cover all your sources ? like 10.0.0.0/8 or similar&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;the addition of fast_accell rules, will not break anything - at least for us it didn't (we did it 3 - 4 months ago) - and you can easily just delete them, or you can just reboot the node (you have to save them in a file in order to kick in next time.....)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;hopefully I clarified some points for you&amp;nbsp;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😁&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;ty,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;PS: one other way to lower the CPU usage - if you concluded that the ack-up is&amp;nbsp; the one triggering it - you can exclude that traffic from certain inspections - like IPS and others....&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2022 08:01:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155811#M26575</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sorin_Gogean</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-27T08:01:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155820#M26576</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think the SK means the subnet is optional, not the IP. So you can specify a single IP or an entire subnet. It states that all of the parameters must be used to add a rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As mentioned by &lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/16983"&gt;@Sorin_Gogean&lt;/a&gt;, you can specify 10.0.0.0/8 as your source, so all of your internal networks to the backup network are covered.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Will be interested to hear if adding the rule helps with your utilisation issue.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2022 20:54:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/155820#M26576</guid>
      <dc:creator>AaronCP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-27T20:54:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/156767#M27057</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/64803"&gt;@AaronCP&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;and&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/16983"&gt;@Sorin_Gogean&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;Thankyou very much for the suggestion&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As per TAC suggestion and Answer of our query :&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;If we add the top connections to the SecureXL Fast Accelerator is there going to be any impact on the 2 SND cores, because at the time of High CPU utilization observed the SND cores CPU utilization is around 40-50% ?&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial black,avant garde" color="#00FF00"&gt;Answer&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/U&gt;:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;There is going to be no impact on the SNDs due to fastaccel, as there is no inspection for this affected traffic&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;So as per my Plane of action also the same BUT&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;Now we face the&amp;nbsp;high&lt;STRONG&gt; CPU utilization&amp;nbsp;in SND&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;core because as we added the high CPU utilization connection into the&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;SecureXL Fast Accelerator.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV class=""&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="image.png" style="width: 871px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/17707iB7BAE84356EBE55F/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="image.png" alt="image.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Now instead&amp;nbsp;of CoreXL_FW now CoreXL_SND take high CPU so to overcome the issue we prepare&amp;nbsp;a next POA :&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Manual configuration of CoreXL Firewall and SND instances so for this 4 for SND and for&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;firewall workers.&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;FONT face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;OR :&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;dynamic_split :&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT color="#5f6368"&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;On Check Point Appliances, R80.40 added the ability to change the number of CoreXLClosed Firewall and SND instances without reboot (Dynamic Split). Like&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;performance-enhancing daemon that&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;balances the load between CoreXL SNDs and CoreXL Firewalls&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;It dynamically changes the split between CoreXL SNDs and CoreXL Firewalls&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;As this dynamic_split disabled by default&amp;nbsp;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;FONT color="#000000"&gt;As Check&amp;nbsp;Point does&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;not recommend manual configuration&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;of CoreXL Firewall and SND instances, because such configuration disables the CoreXL Dynamic Split so t&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;o enable the CoreXL Dynamic Split again, you must disable it and enable it.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Supported Models : 5000 series: 5600,&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;5800&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;and 5900&lt;BR /&gt;Our GiftCity Appliance&lt;STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;: CPAP-SG5800-NGTP&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;which supports&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Dynamic split .&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;For&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;SecureXL Fast Accelerator Query :&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If we added some connections in the&amp;nbsp; SecureXL Fast Accelerator then is there any chance that only a few connections have already been added but any chance of&amp;nbsp;not going through&amp;nbsp;the SecureXL Fast Accelerator path ?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Is it&amp;nbsp;possible to add the overall Subnet into the&amp;nbsp; SecureXL Fast Accelerator instead&amp;nbsp;of adding any particular source and destination ? (Still not try but any one already try )&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If reboot the firewall then still the&amp;nbsp;Firewall FAST Accel table connection list exists or removed automatically ?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;Kindly consider&amp;nbsp;both and provide the recommande solution Checkmates Team,&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Regards&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2022 16:46:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/156767#M27057</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chinmaya_Naik</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-09-07T16:46:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: High CPU Utlization Troubleshooting Step (SecureXL Fast Accelerator)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/156770#M27059</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/25509"&gt;@Chinmaya_Naik&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would recommend enabling the Dynamic Balancing for CoreXL as per SK164155 if your gateway is compatible. I've personally enabled this feature in our production environment and experienced no negative impact. When monitoring the CPU in CPView, I can see the feature dynamically allocating more SND cores during high load, then reverting to the original split once the load had settled. Looking at your screenshot, it looks like your remaining cores are quite heavily utilised, too. Was your screenshot from a particularly busy period?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To address your other points:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. I'm not sure I'm fully understanding the question. Can you elaborate, please?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. You can add entire networks to rules, but you must still include a source and destination. I've not tried this, but you could try adding a rule that accelerates all internal traffic by adding 10.0.0.0/8 in the source and destination.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3. Rebooting the gateway does retain the entries in the fast_accel table. It's only the hit count that's lost.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aaron.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2022 17:33:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/High-CPU-Utlization-Troubleshooting-Step-SecureXL-Fast/m-p/156770#M27059</guid>
      <dc:creator>AaronCP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-09-07T17:33:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

