Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 11 replies
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 2068 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

System "heaviness"

Avi Bar Ilan

Hi Guys

i am currently using 2 xg firewall - both are virtual machines on esxi hosts.

both vm have 2 cpu and 4gb of ram.

i have a lot of experience working with firewall

(forigates, checkpoints, pfsense, etc)

my recent migration to xg is successful but the most "noticeable" difference i can point is:

the general heaviness, sluggishness and overall slowness of the system.

 

am i not givving the VM's enough resources?

or is the system heavy by design?

 



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Emrick Jack said:

    Hi Guys

    i am currently using 2 xg firewall - both are virtual machines on ESXi hosts.

    both VM has 2 cpu and 4gb of ram.

    i have a lot of experience working with firewall

    (frigates, checkpoints, pfsense, etc)

    my recent migration to xg is successful but the most "noticeable" difference i can point is:

    the general heaviness, sluggishness and overall slowness of the system.

     

    am I not giving the VM's enough resources?

    or is the system heavy by design?

     

    I Really Like This Post Very Helpfull Post I Sguetsoin My Friends on This Site

  • 0 in reply to Emrick Jack

    HI,

    you will not get any real arguments about the XG GUI speed, it has been discussed at length and is caused by the amount of data it loads/sends (quoting from an earlier thread somewhere in the order of 2MB). V18 is promising to provide a leaner and faster GUI.

    I am not sure what you are comparing between the various firewalls that you quoted as to functions in the configuration. Also memory should not be an issue, memory is cheap, the limit being 6gb for a home user licence.

    Ian

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Hi

    you have actually answered my question. sort of

    i wanted to know if the "heaviness" an issue on my side or is caused by design.

    so now, i understand thats "its not just me" it is heavy and sluggish by design (or design flaw)

     

    but sadly,

    i understand that there is nothing i can do to improve it other than to wait to version 18

Reply
  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Hi

    you have actually answered my question. sort of

    i wanted to know if the "heaviness" an issue on my side or is caused by design.

    so now, i understand thats "its not just me" it is heavy and sluggish by design (or design flaw)

     

    but sadly,

    i understand that there is nothing i can do to improve it other than to wait to version 18

Children
  • 0 in reply to Avi Bar Ilan

    Hi Avi,

    the GUI performance is only an issue if you like me ike to fiddle with your configuration. If you a set it an leave it person then the GUI performance is not issue.

    I have a small XG running an Atom 1.9ghz processor, 4 ports and 6GB of ram and an SSD. I was using this until I got tired of waiting for the GUI to update, so I reverted to my e3-1225v5 based processor which run s around 3.7GHZ. I like to where I can test out questions asked in these forums to provide practical answers, so the faster processor was a must. The Atom unit uses 10w where as the e3 unit uses about 25w.

    Most home based and even VM based servers have power savings enabled on the processor where as the hardware XGs have power saving disabled to improve performance. So you can improve GUI performance by disabling power savings in your VM and BIOS.

    Ian