<?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: ClusterXL Load Sharing Design Best Practice Questions in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/ClusterXL-Load-Sharing-Design-Best-Practice-Questions/m-p/184243#M33847</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Legacy ClusterXL load-sharing is not used with VSX in this way.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;VSLS allows you to distribute VS between VSX cluster members primarily/typically to balance resource utilisation but not to split the same traffic flow.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Where VS share an interface we have the virtual switch concept but again this is not a load-sharing application.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;What is possible with dynamic routing also doesn't constitute load-sharing in a Cluster XL / VSX operating mode context.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2023 23:46:16 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-06-18T23:46:16Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ClusterXL Load Sharing Design Best Practice Questions</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/ClusterXL-Load-Sharing-Design-Best-Practice-Questions/m-p/184237#M33844</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Checkmates,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Im designing gateway with ClusterXL Load Sharing + VSX. The design would be approximately:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;3 VS (A,B,X)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;VS A+B would connect to same switch with trunking sub interface&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;A have a heavy traffic, so it will mapping on GW1 and B+X &amp;nbsp;on GW2&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;my question is:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;eventhough A and B have same interface, is it possible in CheckPoint&amp;nbsp;divide the traffic according to the requirement above? I'm afraid because it uses the same interface for both VS(A+B) so both VS can only run on the same GW (can't do Load Sharing)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;For design like above, does anyone has idea or best practice for the design?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;With LS, if GW1 has 60% utilization and GW2 has 50% means 110% utilization. What is the impact if one of the GW down?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thankyou Checkmates!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2023 15:02:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/ClusterXL-Load-Sharing-Design-Best-Practice-Questions/m-p/184237#M33844</guid>
      <dc:creator>Fabz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-18T15:02:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ClusterXL Load Sharing Design Best Practice Questions</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/ClusterXL-Load-Sharing-Design-Best-Practice-Questions/m-p/184243#M33847</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Legacy ClusterXL load-sharing is not used with VSX in this way.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;VSLS allows you to distribute VS between VSX cluster members primarily/typically to balance resource utilisation but not to split the same traffic flow.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Where VS share an interface we have the virtual switch concept but again this is not a load-sharing application.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;What is possible with dynamic routing also doesn't constitute load-sharing in a Cluster XL / VSX operating mode context.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jun 2023 23:46:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/ClusterXL-Load-Sharing-Design-Best-Practice-Questions/m-p/184243#M33847</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-18T23:46:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ClusterXL Load Sharing Design Best Practice Questions</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/ClusterXL-Load-Sharing-Design-Best-Practice-Questions/m-p/184292#M33857</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The Load Sharing in VSX refers to the fact the VSes can be distributed among all cluster members.&lt;BR /&gt;The VSes themselves are HA (active on one physical gateway, standby on another).&lt;BR /&gt;You can assign the VSes to specific hosts, so A is one gateway, B+X are on the other.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If your expected utilization of both gateways is ~50% and one fails over, you'll be left with a single overloaded gateway.&lt;BR /&gt;Performance will most certainly be degraded at the very least.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:18:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/ClusterXL-Load-Sharing-Design-Best-Practice-Questions/m-p/184292#M33857</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-06-19T17:18:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

