Important note about SSL VPN compatibility for 20.0 MR1 with EoL SFOS versions and UTM9 OS. Learn more in the release notes.

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

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?

This thread was automatically locked due to age.
  • C'mon mate, lets imagine that sophos has to pay salaries, developing new solutions, ideas maintain current activities, infrastructure etc etc. We can be glad that sophos is allowing us a home users to using their product just for free with all features. Beside that, for home usage 4 cores and 6 gb is a overkill. With all features on you can gain 1GB/s. look how Fortigate(and other solutions) are expensive, what the are offering etc. With sophos you've got it for free with great community :) appreciate it ^^ and if you wanna use it for commercial just support it - buying it ;)


    HP Small Form Factor:  i5 4Cores, 8Gb of RAM.
    Intel Network Card 5x Eth
    SSD: 256Gb

  • I understand this logic, but there is no reason to limit hardware if it is proven that the UTM is in a home location.  There are tons of other UTM packages out there that don't have hardware limitations.  I don't mind paying the annual license, but to pay the annual license with a hardware restriction is weak.  I guess I'll just stay on PFsense until they finally decide to remove the limitations.  Thanks

  • Thanks for you time I just wanted a simple answer; no the limitation is still present.  No clue why you guys argue that the limitation is acceptable; it’s not for me.  I’ve stated it multiple times, but you guys seem programmed that limitations are okay.  Cool; it’s not for me...

    No point in continuing this post any longer.   Thanks again for your time.  Please mark this post as closed or delete it.

  • Not arguing, I just accept what Sophos offer as do I accept what the other vendors offer.


    Each individual's requirement is different and enjoy whatever fits your requirements best.  I'm still determining what's meets my needs best, but then I also like to explore vendors offerings.

  • Was in reply to the others not you; as you seem to be in a similar boat of testing new packages.  Good luck on figuring out what works best for you.  

  • The only times I've seen large organisations using PFSense is for internal VLAN segregation, and where QoS is required - not for permitter use - they normally seem to leave that to the commercial side of things.

    Open Source has been a big no-no for a lot of the companies I support - it's the fear of the source code being available and therefore being examined by hackers for exploits - with closed source you have to take a longer route to find them.

    And agree, the problem is that most things at home have been left in the default setup, and that usually is not hardened many home users would just have an any>any rule, rather than just allow what's needed and block everything else?

    Any>Any kind of defeats the object of having a firewall - and a lot of people while they are happy to control what comes in, they forget about securing what goes out.

    Tim Grantham

    Enterprise Architect & Business owner

  • Flyncalpoly said:

    No clue why you guys argue that the limitation is acceptable; it’s not for me.

    It isn't about limitations. It's about "is it sufficient to satisfactorily do the job I need doing".

    Every solution has limitations. You can always specify more cpu, more memory, more bandwidth etc. If Sophos limited you to 100 CPUs and 1TB memory would you be happy or would it still be 'limited'? If you were going to provide an XG solution to a customer would you specify the biggest possible (at enormous cost) because it has the least limitations? Of course not, you specify what will do the job.

    Will the free solution that Sophos offer do the job for a home user? Yes. That's what matters!

  •  I seem to remember you stating on another post, that it is not the brute power but the speed that is most important when choosing a CPU, as mathematical calculations are not the cornerstone requirement of the software, just quick responses.

    I am currently looking out for a micro-pc with 2 x Intel NICs with a Team Red (AMD) CPU, as most are Intel.

    XG & UTM Architect (Systems: XG v18 & UTM 9.7 - Virtual, HW & SW)
    Curious enough to take it apart, skilled enough to put it back together, Clever enough to hide the extra parts when I'm Done!

  • Hi Argo,

    i don' think I have said anything different in this thread?

    Remember the main part of the firewall is establishing the start and ending of the connection, once the connection has been validated then you need a very fast processor to shift the incoming packets to the next stage of the firewall configuration.


    XG115W - v20.0.1 MR-1 - Home

    XG on VM 8 - v20 GA

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

  • I'm reconsidering my i3 6100T again Vs the Atom processor I'm currently using

  • Hi Mike,

    that CPU has 2 real and 2 threads, so you could expect around equivalent of 3 cores, but get 3 snorts (most time one less than CPUs). It will work very well.


    XG115W - v20.0.1 MR-1 - Home

    XG on VM 8 - v20 GA

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

  • Hi


    Food for thought indeed, just got to consider the power consumption vs performance etc.


Reply Children
No Data