Hardware Limitations In Home version

Is it possible to get the hardware limitations removed for the home version?  Or have they been removed in V18?

  • In reply to Prism:

    “you could simply become a partner and get NFR licenses for demonstration.“

    Thank you had I known this I would have gone this route in the beginning.

  • In reply to Flyncalpoly:

    If and when I can get Vodafone Gigafast etc.  I'm mulling a £500 budget for a device, I spent £300 on a UDM-Pro before selling it a month later.  They're now going for crazy money for what is such a flawed edge device.

     

    Tempted to sell the Pondesk unit I bought and get the i3 back into service.  The SFF PC with 4 port Intel NIC is just sat in the spares pile at the moment.  Not sure the total power consumption of the unit.

     

    This is a comparison between the two units I have atm re CPU - http://cpuspecs.com/E3845-vs-i3-6100T

  • In reply to Mike Scott:

    Look at a Dell OptiPlex 3070 with i3-9100 - that's currently less than £500 with more than enough SSD storage, 8GB RAM.

    Install a PCIe network card, and you'll have the ultimate machine, that's reasonable on power, and also enough throughput.

  • In reply to BLS:

    Shame the SFF offering from Dell doesn't have the ability to install a SFF PCI-E NIC.

     

    The Intel I3-9100T has a lower TDP rating too.  Will look into options further etc.

  • In reply to Mike Scott:

    I thought the SFF does - or do you mean the Micro - as I presume the later and yes would be nice if that had a PCI-e slot on it - would be perfect...

  • In reply to BLS:

    In that speedtest are you using the IPS and Advanced protection? or just a bare fw rule?

     

    Because I can max out a 3.6 GHZ processor with 3 cores 6 threads (virtualize) with IPS amd advanced protection at arround 400Mbps upload is much worse.

     

     Your sophos central account is bussiness or personal? what advanges do you have linking you fw to sophos central?

  • In reply to l0rdraiden:

    I have IPS and ATP enabled and can get that level of performance, it will depend on your underlaying architecture - the E5-2697v4 CPUs are fairly powerful.

     

    2x cores of the E5-2697v4 gives the same level of performance as a i5-4400 (Going by CPU benchmark results)

  • In reply to BLS:

    BLS

    I thought the SFF does - or do you mean the Micro - as I presume the later and yes would be nice if that had a PCI-e slot on it - would be perfect...

     

     

    Sorry, yes I was referring to the Micro.

     

    Currently on a 70/20 Vodafone ADSL connection, just wanting Vodafone to pull their finger out for rolling out Gigafast more.  

  • In reply to BLS:

    How many virtual cores are you assigning to Sophos xg?

    Are you using esxi?

    I have a 2400G my single core performance is much better than yours

  • In reply to l0rdraiden:

    Using ESXi - was 6.5 and now 6.7 - 3 months time will be 7.0 - The VM has been assigned as 1 CPU with 2 core per socket - found the performance better that way.

     

    So you're on AMD - hmm, I've seen strange things with AMD in the past under virtualisation - where the CPU seems to bog down and not give the full performance when shared between several VMs - so much so that I stick with Intel for any hardware replacement programs, just because I know it will work and work well..

  • Prob going to do a custom build using one of these processors into a m-itx board etc.

     

    ark.intel.com/.../featurefilter.html

  • In reply to l0rdraiden:

    Hi,

    it is personal, the history is kept for 7 days.

    I setup the account during beta testing and it is still operational.

    What advantages, for me none really, but I can comment on it in the forums when things are not correct or someone asks for advice.

    CM does offer a couple reports the the native XG does not eg bandwidth usage.

    Ian

    You do get remote access to your XG without the exposing your external access, not that I need that anymore.

    Ian

  • In reply to BLS:

    This is weird because I don't have any performance issue when I use pfsense or opnsense virtualized

  • In reply to l0rdraiden:

    But both of those are different architecture - it's a bit like saying GIMP works fast on my machine, but PhotoShop doesn't...

     

    The other thing to bear in mind is the way that machines handle network configuration - the CPU under certain conditions will take the hit at processing, where on Xeon processors it's more left to the hardware in the Network Card...

     

    AMD used to be bad for this, and the CPU would load under heavy network traffic.

     

     

    I would suspect that the Sophos XG is more at home on Intel platforms than AMD.

     

    Don't get me wrong, AMD are good, but in the right circumstances - they are great for gaming machines, and general desktop performance.

  • In reply to BLS:

    My NIC are Intel i350 and they are passtrough to the VM so there is no emulation. These are enterprise grade nic and the HW offloading is disable you they are doing some work instead the CPU

    What you are mentioning has nothing to do with the CPU but with the network card chipset

    I have had VMs based on FreeBDS, Ubuntu and Centos and have always perform well, so maybe what it is not optimized is Sophos. I am using KVM and as far as I know Sophos is based on Ubuntu/debian