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

Very slow WLAN using SD-RED20 + wifi module (802.11 AC 2x2 wifi module (for 125w / 135w rev3)


I'm having problem using new RED20 device + WiFi module.

With ethernet speed is just fine, but when connected to wifi connection speed is horrible.

RED's operation mode is Standard/unified.

Tested with various devices. Laptop connects to REDs AP at 300Mbps.

Most of the time Ping is well over 100. At worst over 3000ms.

What could be done to fix this? Firewall we're using is XG 210 running SFOS 17.5.11 MR-11.

Patterns are up to date.


Here's some pics:  


This is the speed with laptop connected to RED's wifi: 


This is the result when connected with ethernet through RED:

This is the Wifi speed when same device connected to APX320 to clarify it's not the client device issue (Not connected to RED):

This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents Reply Children
  • Just got the new device from Sophos.

    Guess what...

    It does NOT work either. It's just the same.

  • From my sources I just had a message:

    "This problem has raised multiple tickets so far. And R&D is trying to fix it with severity level "Very High" 



    So please Sophos "official" support, could you please comment this. Where are we now with this?

    What is the estimate when we can expect to have this fix?

  • We are actively investigating unusually slow wireless performance on a small number of SD-RED devices. The problem has been reproduced and Engineering are currently trying to root cause the issue. The tracking ID for this issue is NRF-341.

    This is indeed getting very high priority and I hope to have an answer very soon, but clearly I cannot make a commitment to a possible fix time. I will keep the Community updated when I know more


    Stuart Hatto | XG Product Management

  • Just wanted to keep everyone aware of the current progress.

    We have now reproduced and root caused the slow performance of SD-RED WiFi. This does not affect every device but we will be releasing a pattern update for XG connected devices around the 19th June, and an update for UTM somewhere around the 23rd June.

    I'm sorry that we can't bring these dates in any closer, but the build, packaging, QA and legal requirements all take time.


    Once again the dates above are estimates not promises, and I will keep the Community updated if there are any changes to timescale.


    Thank you for your patience,


  • Stuart, is this issue tied to certain lots of the REDs and/or WiFi modules shipped, or is it about specific configurations that trigger the issue?  If it's the latter, it'd be nice to know what configurations trigger the issue so we can work around it.

    CTO, Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC

    Advice given as posted on this forum does not construe a support relationship or other relationship with Convergent Information Security Solutions, LLC or its subsidiaries.  Use the advice given at your own risk.

  • It's not configuration related, and there is no workaround*. At this point there are only 2 cases reported to Sophos Support but there are many hundreds of devices with the WiFi module running without reported issues.

    *Well, there is a workaround and that would be to add an APX to a wired port.

  • Hi everyone,

    There is an update for the performance issue. The fix will be released in a Pattern update on 18th June for SFOS 18 MR, 23rd June for SFOS 17.5 MR12 and in RPM on 23rd June for UTM 9.7 MR3.

    For more information, please refer to this article.


    Community Support Engineer | Sophos Support

    Sophos Support VideosKnowledge Base  |  @SophosSupport | Sign up for SMS Alerts |
    If a post solves your question use the 'This helped me' link

  • There it is:

    On your appliance : Backup & Firmware - pattern updates. 


  • Nope!

    Only version 3.0.0 available.

  • Can you verify your u2d.log on Shell, that your XG is getting this packet or not?