Smart-1 625 and R80.10

[Mel_Stevenson]

Hoping someone can clarify for me whether I should be able to re-image a Smart-1 625 with R80.10?   It picks up the USB but the 625 is not listed in the boot options.  I would have expected to see it in option 4 with the other Smart-1 models (Smart-1 5/25/50/200/400/525/3000/5050/5150).  I selected option 4 anyway, the installation starts then it tells me it's unable to find the driver.  My contact at Check Point tells me R80.10 is listed as a supported version in the Smart-1 625 release notes tho personally I can't find any RN for this appliance.  The R80.10 supported platforms list doesn't include the 625 but then again it doesn't include the 525 so I'm unsure how accurate it is.   Can anyone help?

[PhoneBoy]

R80.10 did not ship with the newer Linux kernel which is required for newer appliances.
I believe we did release an R80.10 image with the new kernel for management appliances, but I don't know if it includes support for the Smart-1 625.
Which image(s) did you try exactly?

In any case, I highly recommend using R80.20 or R80.30 as those have mainstream support for the newer kernel on management appliances.

[Mel_Stevenson]

Thanks PhoneBoy 🙂

I tried R80.10 T462.  I see T479 is available but that too doesn't list the 625 in its list of supported appliances.  Is that the image with the new kernel?  Worth a try?

I do need to use R80.10 for this particular piece of work - customer wants me to do a test upgrade on an eval box running their config, going from R80.10 to R80.20 just to make sure nothing alarming happens, before we then do it on their production environment.

[PhoneBoy]

R80.10 T462 would have been the one I suggested.
The Smart-1 625 Product Page lists a unique R80.30 ISO for download.
Which suggests that the only thing the Smart-1 625 supports currently is R80.30.

In any case, for what you're doing, you might be better off doing the work in a VM.

[Mel_Stevenson]

He reckons he got really whacky results when trying to simulate it in vmware.  Hence he wanted to test it on an appliance.  Have you heard of that sort of thing happening before?

[PhoneBoy]

Define "wacky results."
On the management side, aside from disk/CPU cores, there aren't any real hardware dependencies, particularly on upgrades.

[Mel_Stevenson]

Good question!  He was a bit vague.  Strange errors that he saw as being platform-related.  His in-house vmware upgrade from R80.10 to R80.20 did not go as planned but I don't know the details.  He felt strongly that it needed to be tested in an appliance environment and since the installation steps *are* different in vmware and on appliances I felt he might be onto something and that it would be something worth doing.  Do you think it's more likely the vmware environment was a bit dodgy?

Latest from the TAC (we have a call open) is still vague though they did say they don't see an option to install R80.10 onto this model.  They suggested I check with sales (?!)

[PhoneBoy]

The installation/upgrade steps aren't that different from VM versus physical hardware.
Only thing I can think of is maybe the undersized the VM they were testing on.
In any case, more details are needed.

As for the redirect to sales on the question, it may be there is a customer release that will allow R80.10 to install on the Smart-1 625.
That would most definitely have to be acquired from Sales.

In general, you should really be doing this as migrate export/import rather than an in-place upgrade.
This way, you get the benefit of using the xfs filesystem in R80.20.
This requires a clean install, though.

[Mel_Stevenson]

Could certainly have been undersized VM/not quite supported configuration.  I will ask for more details on the VM environment.

Thank you for clarifying why Sales would need to be engaged.  I was a bit baffled but that explains it 🙂

I hadn't been aware of the different file system in R80.20.  I've only been on the R80.10 course!   Is there an article you can point me to that spells out the differences between the 2 and the benefits of xfs?  I can't find anything on the Check Point website that tells you how they are different (just that they *are* different!) and general web searching has not left me any more enlightened either!

[PhoneBoy]

I'm sure there's an article out there that breaks down the nerdy details between ext3 and xfs.
It mostly boils down to better performance, improved resiliency, and support for larger volumes.

[Mel_Stevenson]

OK thank you 🙂

[Mel_Stevenson]

I've got a sort of update on this - but about the Smart-1 525 now but it may still be helpful.   There is a specific R80.10 build for the Smart1 525 and a couple of other models.  So the generic R80.10 download (which includes the Smart1 525 as an option) will not install and you have to seek out the specific 525/5050/5150 ISO image https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal/role/supportcenterUser/page/default.psml/m...

This is not in any way well documented and it took me ages to get to the bottom of this.  Admittedly R80.10 is now quite old but there are still some circumstances where it's still required

[PhoneBoy]

Were you successful with that ISO?

[Mel_Stevenson]

Yes I was, thanks!

[Timothy_Hall]

Right, there is a special release of R80.10 for the 525/5050/5150 models because they require the Gaia 3.10 kernel to support the hardware used in those units.  The Gaia 3.10 kernel was not introduced for the SMS/MDS in the maintrain release until R80.20, hence the need for the back-port to support R80.10.

[Mel_Stevenson]

I'm struggling to understand, sorry 😕 Are you saying that the GAIA 3.10 kernel is a new kernel, or an old one? (I'm aware that kernel version information will be somewhere in my training PDF but the capsule restrictions on searching are *really* hampering the benefits of having an R80 training manual so it's really just easier to ask here)
Is there is a special release for the 525, 5050 & 5150 because their hardware is more advanced? Is that why it can't take the generic R80.10? Or is it the opposite? Sorry if this is a really stupid question

[Dorit_Dor]

1. Linux kernel 3.10 is newer than the classical gaia - in the future we plan to move kernels more often so kernel versions are expected to be part of new versions 

2. Kernel 3.10 first introduced in R80.20 as side branch. In R80.30 its integrated meaning it also has full jumbo etc... in R80.40 we are likely to have only this kernel. 

In the future new versions may bring new kernels more regularly. 

3. R80.10 didnt have this kernel version as option and therefore requires special handling

4. By now we have more mgmt servers on R80.20 than R80.10 and R77.30 and R80.20 is already out in the market for a year. Therefore we strongly recommend to use R80.20 or .30 and not to go to R80.10 today. 

[Mel_Stevenson]

OK got it I think, thank you!  I'm aware R80.10 is no longer recommended, this is a specific circumstance.