|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: FW: [FW1] Platform Question
It has been my person (but limited) experience that Windows it just plain slower at everything it does. The FIRST thing I would do is download the utility disk for you NICs and manually set the interfaces to what you want, and then go into the driver setting for NT and set it to the same. Then go to the switch that you are plugging into and set it appropriately also. Autonegociation should only be used for hosts, certainly not servers, is your firewall a host? :) It is honestly too bad that you don't have some sort of benchmark you can compare again, but I really don't know of one. What exactly is slow? I assume its lagging? Maybe you can ask someone on the list to compare lag with you, at similar loads. On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 [email protected] wrote: > Well the switch was to free up the Sun box for database operations PLUS our > staff is much more NT literate than Unix. Our load is very LOW, T1x2 to > internet and at MAX 20 simultaneous SecureRemote users. > > So, that being said... here are answers to your questions -- appreciate > everyone's help, have gotten lot's of responses now :) > > It's FW-1 sp2 - still have not got a definitive answer as to whether this > supports SMP or not. > The 220R was a single 450Mhz > The Intel NICs are set to AUTO, but both their diags and SNMP report they > are running at Full Duplex > > Thanks again to everyone for trying to work through this with me! > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: FW: [FW1] Platform Question > > I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but I wonder how many people would go > FROM solaris TO windows. > > I don't know much about anything, but I have heard that Solaris machines > work much better under HIGH load then windows machines. Is your server > under high load? > > I wouldn't be TOO suprised if your users are actually experiencing a > performance hit. My reasoning here is: > > -What version of FW-1? Is it a version that supports SMP? > -was the 220R dual? what CPUs did it have? Two 450's perhaps? > -does the Windows FW-1 version support SMP? If it doesn't then you are > comparing two boxes with very similar hardware(assuming worst case > on the # of CPU's in the 220R)... but one with the overhead of an > expensive qui. > -even though your RAM has increased, if you weren't using all 128mb on the > Solaris machine... then it wouldn't make any difference. > > (PS. Have you checked your speed and duplex on the NICs on the NT > machine? Autonegociation is worse then useless.) > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 [email protected] wrote: > > > > > It's funny, I didn't get one single reply on this... does that mean NO ONE > > has ever run into this, or is it just something no one wants to talk > about? > > > <SNIP> > -- --Paul ================================================================================ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ================================================================================
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
