<?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 in VSX Question in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-in-VSX-Question/m-p/183915#M33745</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The CoreXL setting in VSX only applies to VS0 per:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R81.10/WebAdminGuides/EN/CP_R81.10_VSX_AdminGuide/Topics-VSXG/CoreXL-for-Virtual-Systems.htm" target="_blank"&gt;https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R81.10/WebAdminGuides/EN/CP_R81.10_VSX_AdminGuide/Topics-VSXG/CoreXL-for-Virtual-Systems.htm&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;With VSX, each VS is assigned a number of cores.&lt;BR /&gt;That core assignment is static and changing it will require downtime.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 18:26:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-06-13T18:26:03Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CoreXL in VSX Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-in-VSX-Question/m-p/183896#M33738</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Checkmates,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a plan to enable 2 VSX (WAN&amp;amp;Internet) in the 7000 Series ClusterXL.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Based on a datasheet 7000 has 32 vcore and since the Internet has more traffic so we trying to map 20 vcore for the Internet and the rest for WAN.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Internet : 20 vcore&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;WAN : 12 vcore&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;this approach can achieve in 81.10? and i got a challenge from my manager, if suddenly the internet has high traffic, is it possible by automatic some core from WAN to move to Internet?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and what happens if the core sticks to some VS and is already 100% fully utilized? will CP drop the packet, or is the packet waiting in the queue?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;is there any degradation performance we will face if we have enabled both coreXL and VSX?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 15:07:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-in-VSX-Question/m-p/183896#M33738</guid>
      <dc:creator>tropicanaslim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-13T15:07:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CoreXL in VSX Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-in-VSX-Question/m-p/183915#M33745</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The CoreXL setting in VSX only applies to VS0 per:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R81.10/WebAdminGuides/EN/CP_R81.10_VSX_AdminGuide/Topics-VSXG/CoreXL-for-Virtual-Systems.htm" target="_blank"&gt;https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R81.10/WebAdminGuides/EN/CP_R81.10_VSX_AdminGuide/Topics-VSXG/CoreXL-for-Virtual-Systems.htm&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;With VSX, each VS is assigned a number of cores.&lt;BR /&gt;That core assignment is static and changing it will require downtime.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 18:26:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-in-VSX-Question/m-p/183915#M33745</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-13T18:26:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CoreXL in VSX Question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-in-VSX-Question/m-p/183920#M33748</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;One important and annoying note: the instances may be added stopped. If this happens, you will see output like this:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;LI-CODE lang="markup"&gt;[Expert@DallasSA]# fw ctl multik stat
ID | Active  | CPU    | Connections | Peak    
----------------------------------------------
 0 | Yes     | 1      |           3 |       34
 1 | No      | -      |           0 |        0&lt;/LI-CODE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If your output has rows with "No" in them, you need to manually start the CoreXL workers:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;LI-CODE lang="markup"&gt;[Expert@DallasSA]# fw ctl multik start
Instance 1 started (2 of 2 are active)

[Expert@DallasSA]# fw ctl multik stat
ID | Active  | CPU    | Connections | Peak    
----------------------------------------------
 0 | Yes     | 1      |           4 |       34
 1 | Yes     | 0      |           5 |        5&lt;/LI-CODE&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 21:06:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/CoreXL-in-VSX-Question/m-p/183920#M33748</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-13T21:06:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

