Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • State Suggested Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 19 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 29 subscribers
  • Views 1172 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

Disapointed by XGS 116 for home

Jeff Dufey

I tested a VM with XG home Edition and I was pretty happy with it that I decided to order a physical firewall to get a real protection instead of virtual.

I ordered a XGS 116 and I got really disapointed by the noize of the device. I plug the device in the ground floor and I can hear the high frequences fan noise even in my living room at the first floor. I get surprise when I upgraded to the latest firmware (19OS) that I still got 3 free update and after  that I must order support which is a good price.I also realized that I have no licenses for IPS and this costs like 600.- per year.

I feel like this firewall was way to big for home usage and I will asks for a refund.

I checked on the web and it looks like the XGS 87 also have a lot of big noise feedback regarding the size of the box. Is it the same regarding the licenses as additional?

Is there a way to have a fanless device with XG Home Edition instead of having to sell my car just to have a good performant firewall?



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

    There are fanless devices that can support XG. Mostly the Qotom ones but you will have a couple of things to keep in mind. There is an entire discussion about this topic.

    The XG has limited support for certain NICs and the ones with the older Intel i211 through i219 NICs are supported are are recommended. Running a fanless device with the newer NICs that are not supported will require you to run the XG virtualized for a few reasons:

    1. XG home does not support UEFI boot which means the newer devices cannot boot the XG natively but will work in a VM if the hypervisor supports UEFI since Intel is doing away with legacy boot support*

    *The older devices support legacy mode BIOS which means they will boot the XG natively.

    2. The newer devices have NICs that are not support by the XG so that is another reason why you would have to virtualize the firewall.

    The XG home version includes IPS for free and you should not have to pay for it. In fact the home edition support everything except for Heartbeat/application synchronization and most Sophos Central features like remote administration, besides the "free" Wireless portion of Sophos Central wireless. All these things that are evaluating are free:

  • 0 in reply to alan weir

    Hi Alan,

    the Xg does not support i219 series or i225/6 series intel NICs, I think you made a typing mistake. CM does support remote administration for the home licence user, but does not support report generation and only holds data for 7 days.

    Ian

    XG115W - v19.5.1 mr-1 - Home

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    Sorry if I was mistaken but I was under the impression it supported i219.

    anyways to the OP there is no official hardware compatibility list but supported NICs are based on the version of whichever linux kernel that the XG is running at the moment.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    There is a thread from 7 years ago where it was concluded that the i219 was supported in the UTM, and that was using kernel 3.12x. The XG is on kernel version 4.12 which means there's no reason it should not be supported unless the devs went out of their way to make sure it isn't supported by removing the drivers for i219 from the kernel but that would seem like a very devious thing to do.

    So if it's supported in the UTM it should be supported in the XG since both the UTM and the XG are using Linux kernel version 4 or higher and the i219 NIC was supported since version 3.12

  • 0 in reply to alan weir

    Hi alan,

    a bit of history for you. When Sophos bough the UTM they decided that is it was too bloated and they wanted a firewall with a smaller foot print, so the bought (against Professional advice) what is now the known as XG.

    To achieve the aim of a smaller foot print

    1/. they removed the drivers for hardware that is not part of the XG hardware line up

    2/. they have outsourced (to other Sophos products) things like reporting, mail handling, AP management etc

    I note the XG software/firmware is growing quite large as more functions that have to be within the firewall are added.

    Ian

    XG115W - v19.5.1 mr-1 - Home

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    I guess that makes sense, since having all those drivers loaded into the kernel would eat up available RAM and put it to waste since the firewall appliance doesn't need them.

Reply Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML