On 22/10/10 06:50, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> Regarding appliance performance, I think they do some tests on the
> appliances, multiply the numbers by X (where X=4...100) and then stick
> them in a datasheet and present it to customers.
Not entirely. But every manufacturer optimizes the results of
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 04:56, Ray wrote:
>
> Myself? We're staying with Open Server. I've seen way too many complaints
> about the appliances being over-rated on performance. If you need a lot of
> NICs, you're going to need a high-end appliance and that is our main reason.
> We bring in each
d terminate each one on their own NIC.
Ray
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:34:21 -0400
> From: jason.ebers...@sti-ultrasound.com
> Subject: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
> To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
>
> I'm at a crossroads. My maintenance renewal is com
cussion of Firewall-1
[mailto:fw-1-mailingl...@amadeus.us.checkpoint.com] On Behalf Of Dan Lynch
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:08 PM
To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
Subject: Re: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
> IP appliances on the other hand, are a completely different
ist for discussion of Firewall-1
> [mailto:fw-1-mailingl...@amadeus.us.checkpoint.com] On Behalf
> Of Sergio Alvarez
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:22 PM
> To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
> Subject: Re: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
>
> I consi
r 20, 2010 6:22 PM
To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
Subject: Re: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
I consider all previous comments valid, but it is important to note Check
Point customers in general have complained about poor hardware and
performance on the UTM-1 appliances, which
Hi,
we use Open Server hardware with Splat a very long time with success (same
hardware for tests and so on). Our favorite platform is Dell. They now use new
raid controller (e.g. Perc 6/I H200) which aren't supported by Splat. Therefore
we hope that checkpoint upgrades its old hcl as well.
T
mailto:fw-1-mailingl...@amadeus.us.checkpoint.com] On Behalf Of
Ebersole, Jason
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 14:34
To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
Subject: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
I'm at a crossroads. My maintenance renewal is coming due and my
Checkpoint repre
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:34 PM
> To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
> Subject: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
>
> I'm at a crossroads. My maintenance renewal is coming due and my Checkpoint
> representative was reviewing the account (we have on
world.
-Original Message-
From: Mailing list for discussion of Firewall-1
[mailto:fw-1-mailingl...@amadeus.us.checkpoint.com] On Behalf Of Ebersole, Jason
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:34 PM
To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
Subject: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
I'm at a
ne.
-GS
From: "Ebersole, Jason"
To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 3:34:21 PM
Subject: [FW-1] Staying with SecurePlatform?
I'm at a crossroads. My maintenance renewal is coming due and my Checkpoint
representative was reviewing the a
My biggest complaint has been how the sizing of the appliances is done. The
'benchmarks' are strictly packet forwarding with very little running on the
appliance. So none of the blades (new equal to SmartDefense) being enabled.
Also they are under provisioned in the memory by a long shot.
Now t
I'm at a crossroads. My maintenance renewal is coming due and my Checkpoint
representative was reviewing the account (we have one VPN-1 standalone
Enterprise license protecting 250 IPs) and suggested I go with an appliance. I
think the IP565. There would be a pretty significant discount to get t
13 matches
Mail list logo
