Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: FW-1 throughput question
From: "Dameon D. Welch-Abernathy" <dwelch () phoneboy com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:37:26 -0700
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 06:54:31PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
According to what I know, the kernel module does not take advantage of multiple processors.This is for FW-1 then ? If so, then that's another reason to can FW-1 and use IP Filter instead :-)
But I didn't think the IP stack in Linux was SMP either (of course, FreeBSD probably has addressed this problem :-) What I knew was about 4.0. I do not know if 4.1 still holds true to that. Someone who actually works at Check Point would have to answer that question.
not, but take it for what it's worth. The Security Server processes *do* take advantage of multiple processors (have since 4.0).Err, what are you talking here - NT or Solaris ?
Both. -- PhoneBoy
Current thread:
- FW-1 throughput question Randy Garbrick (May 05)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Aaron Turner (May 12)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Darren Reed (May 15)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Dameon D. Welch-Abernathy (May 17)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Darren Reed (May 17)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Dameon D. Welch-Abernathy (May 17)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Darren Reed (May 17)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Dameon D. Welch-Abernathy (May 17)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Darren Reed (May 17)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Aaron Turner (May 19)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Ryan Russell (May 19)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Shaun Moran (May 21)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Darren Reed (May 15)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Aaron Turner (May 12)
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Aaron Turner (May 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: FW-1 throughput question Alex Goldney (May 12)