- CheckMates
- :
- Products
- :
- Quantum
- :
- Security Gateways
- :
- Re: memory leak
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
Are you a member of CheckMates?
×- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
memory leak
we have been having a memory leak issue on our gateway firewalls, we have applied all kinds of patches and hotfixes and we still face the issue, if we leave the memory to get to the max the firewall becomes unresponsive and cant access it via ssh and have to reboot it. appreciate any help or anyone has experienced the same issue attached a screenshot
current version is R81.20 T89
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
What do you see from cpview?
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
it shows the same thing, once the memory reaches close to the total the firewall stops passing traffic and cant ssh to it have to reboot it screenshot attached
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
what i'm seeing is f2f is high
# fwaccel stats -s
Accelerated conns/Total conns : 0/0 (0%)
LightSpeed conns/Total conns : 0/0 (0%)
Accelerated pkts/Total pkts : 0/35313407 (0%)
LightSpeed pkts/Total pkts : 0/35313407 (0%)
F2Fed pkts/Total pkts : 35313407/35313407 (100%)
F2V pkts/Total pkts : 0/35313407 (0%)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
You should probably gather the necessary data with: https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk35496
And engage TAC if you haven't already.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yea we have been troubleshooting this with TAC for I think 3 months with running debugs and updating hotfixes, no luck
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
we did follow that sk and gave info for TAC like two times no luck still
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Did you escalate the case? Beccause this sounds pretty serious issue to me...
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yea, any reason why it would be using f2f at 100%? we only have fw as enabled blades.
# enabled_blades
# fwaccel stats -s
Accelerated conns/Total conns : 0/0 (0%)
LightSpeed conns/Total conns : 0/0 (0%)
Accelerated pkts/Total pkts : 0/35313407 (0%)
LightSpeed pkts/Total pkts : 0/35313407 (0%)
F2Fed pkts/Total pkts : 35313407/35313407 (100%)
F2V pkts/Total pkts : 0/35313407 (0%
fw
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I agree. Hey, see if below might be related. I really hope we can help you fix this problem. Having case opened for something this for 3 months has to feel frustrating.
Andy
https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-100-F2Fed-80-30/td-p/95704
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
What does "fwaccel stat" show by comparison and what model/hardware is this gateway (16200)??
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
it is a 16k turbo, it is VSX so on VS0 (management VS) it is showing 100% f2f is this normal? on the other VS's I see a variation some are low on f2f some are high over 60%
# fwaccel stat
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Id|Name |Status |Interfaces |Features |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|0 |KPPAK |enabled |eth4-03,eth4-04,Mgmt, |Acceleration,Cryptography |
| | | |eth3-01,eth3-02,eth1-01, | |
| | | |eth1-02,eth2-01,eth2-02 |Crypto: Tunnel,UDPEncap,MD5, |
| | | | |SHA1,3DES,DES,AES-128,AES-256,|
| | | | |ESP,LinkSelection,DynamicVPN, |
| | | | |NatTraversal,AES-XCBC,SHA256, |
| | | | |SHA384,SHA512 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Accept Templates : enabled
Drop Templates : enabled
NAT Templates : enabled
LightSpeed Accel : disabled
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Indeed, under normal circumstances you can largely ignore f2f for VS0 and focus on the other VS with the same cmd.(Presumably you don't route traffic for other Virtual Systems via VS0.)
sk32578 talks to the common reasons for f2f traffic further to the hints given by this command where those causes are policy related, how this would relate to a memory leak remains to be seen.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yes on the other VS's we do have f2f over 30%, in one of the VS's it is at 98%
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I agree with @Chris_Atkinson , you can ignore those for VS0, its probably not relevant. Now, if you see if on other VS's, then yes, should be concerned.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yes on the other VS's we do have f2f over 30%, in one of the VS's it is at 98%
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Did you run the fwaccel stat cmd in the context of that VS, what was the output and is the VS active or standby?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
here is the output, it is the active VS
# fwaccel stats -s
Accelerated conns/Total conns : 4/4 (100%)
LightSpeed conns/Total conns : 0/4 (0%)
Accelerated pkts/Total pkts : 77545/5273486 (1%)
LightSpeed pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
F2Fed pkts/Total pkts : 5195941/5273486 (98%)
F2V pkts/Total pkts : 57/5273486 (0%)
CPASXL pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
PSLXL pkts/Total pkts : 44/5273486 (0%)
CPAS pipeline pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
PSL pipeline pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
QOS inbound pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
QOS outbound pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
Corrected pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]#
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]#
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]#
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]# fwaccel stat
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Id|Name |Status |Interfaces |Features |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|0 |KPPAK |enabled | |Acceleration,Cryptography |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Crypto: Tunnel,UDPEncap,MD5, |
| | | | |SHA1,3DES,DES,AES-128,AES-256,|
| | | | |ESP,LinkSelection,DynamicVPN, |
| | | | |NatTraversal,AES-XCBC,SHA256, |
| | | | |SHA384,SHA512 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Accept Templates : enabled
Drop Templates : enabled
NAT Templates : enabled
LightSpeed Accel : disabled
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Do other VSs show the same? Just VS0 is different?
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
other VS's some of them are showing very high on the f2f others are operating in below 30% here is one of the outputs below of one of the VS's where we have traffic
here is the output, it is the active VS
# fwaccel stats -s
Accelerated conns/Total conns : 4/4 (100%)
LightSpeed conns/Total conns : 0/4 (0%)
Accelerated pkts/Total pkts : 77545/5273486 (1%)
LightSpeed pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
F2Fed pkts/Total pkts : 5195941/5273486 (98%)
F2V pkts/Total pkts : 57/5273486 (0%)
CPASXL pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
PSLXL pkts/Total pkts : 44/5273486 (0%)
CPAS pipeline pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
PSL pipeline pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
QOS inbound pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
QOS outbound pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
Corrected pkts/Total pkts : 0/5273486 (0%)
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]#
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]#
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]#
[Expert@idboinfw009:7]# fwaccel stat
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Id|Name |Status |Interfaces |Features |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|0 |KPPAK |enabled | |Acceleration,Cryptography |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Crypto: Tunnel,UDPEncap,MD5, |
| | | | |SHA1,3DES,DES,AES-128,AES-256,|
| | | | |ESP,LinkSelection,DynamicVPN, |
| | | | |NatTraversal,AES-XCBC,SHA256, |
| | | | |SHA384,SHA512 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Accept Templates : enabled
Drop Templates : enabled
NAT Templates : enabled
LightSpeed Accel : disabled
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Ok, if its not too much to ask here and if you are allowed to post it, can you list things done so far in TAC case?
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
not sure if because those VS's have not a lot of traffic the firewall is just choosing to go via f2f, what we did in TAC we followed that SK for memory leak that I attached 'memleak3.png' and we upgraded the firewalls to the latest takes and ran the sk memory leak procedure again and we still face the issue, we are on R81.20 T89 currently.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hey, quick question...are you able/allowed to send me the debugs you did for TAC? Im more than happy to review them myself and see if I can assist. If yes, please be free to message me offline and we can connect.
Best,
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi @knassif,
can you please share with me the tac case number? i will review and will try to assist.
Thanks,
Ilya
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@knassif I can tell you and I feel very good about this, as @Ilya_Yusupov helped me before with ISPR issue for a customer, he is amazing and will always follow up until issue is solved. You are 100% in good hands mate.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
the case # is SR#6-0004045311
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I have no ounce of doubt that @Ilya_Yusupov will help you fix this issue. I dealt with him before and you can tell he truly CARES, 100%. He is a good person.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yes give some time i'll upload those
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
No rush, take your time. As soon as you send them, I will download and review. I may message you directly for some details beforehand.
Andy
