<?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: Sizing based on SolarWinds Data in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197917#M36992</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Keep in mind that a 6400 is rated up to 2.5Gbps throughout for threat prevention (will vary with HTTPS inspection enabled).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Perhaps take a look at some HCP outputs to understand if there is anything about the existing configuration that you can better tune.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Depending on the number &amp;amp; client type used with mobile access that could be encryption algorithms or for IPS are you using a strict or optimised profile etc.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:33:47 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-11-15T11:33:47Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Sizing based on SolarWinds Data</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197913#M36988</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Check Mates,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently, the utilization of the FW 6400 is ~60%, and there is a need to add one more user segment to be inspected by the FW 6400.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The report from the existing switch taken from Solarwind shows that &lt;STRONG&gt;Bytes In is ~45 Mbps&lt;/STRONG&gt; and &lt;STRONG&gt;Bytes Out is ~50 Mbps&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To minimize utilization in FW above 70%, is the calculation 45+50 Mbps or do we just take the highest Bytes for sizing?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:15:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197913#M36988</guid>
      <dc:creator>Fabz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-11-14T11:15:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sizing based on SolarWinds Data</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197915#M36990</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Could you please specify the gateway software version, current peak throughput and enabled_blades for context?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:28:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197915#M36990</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-11-14T11:28:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sizing based on SolarWinds Data</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197916#M36991</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Last week i upgraded to the latest 81.10 with MOB, IPS, AV, TE, and AB enabled. Peak Throughput was around 670 Mbps.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:03:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197916#M36991</guid>
      <dc:creator>Fabz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-11-14T12:03:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sizing based on SolarWinds Data</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197917#M36992</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Keep in mind that a 6400 is rated up to 2.5Gbps throughout for threat prevention (will vary with HTTPS inspection enabled).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Perhaps take a look at some HCP outputs to understand if there is anything about the existing configuration that you can better tune.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Depending on the number &amp;amp; client type used with mobile access that could be encryption algorithms or for IPS are you using a strict or optimised profile etc.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:33:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197917#M36992</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-11-15T11:33:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sizing based on SolarWinds Data</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197984#M37016</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Cpsizeme (&lt;SPAN&gt;sk88160) can be run in collaboration with your local SE for further sizing insights / validation.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:50:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sizing-based-on-SolarWinds-Data/m-p/197984#M37016</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-11-15T11:50:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

