About cmcguire-coactive

We've not opened a case on this as of yet, but I believe this issue appeared in Panorama v5.0.4 We didn't see it at all in 5.0.3. ... View more

5.0.1h1 seems a perfectly stable release on the PA-200. If you are anxious to get up on 5.0, I think 5.0.3 makes sense. You can always go back to 5.0.1h1 (on PA-200). Do realize that there is no roll back to 4.x (if you update your config at all, which presumably you will) ... View more

As excited as we all are for this release, I suggest waiting a little bit before upgrading any truly production boxes. I'd stick for 4.1.10 for a couple weeks and see what issues people report in 5.0.3 before taking the 4.1 -> 5.x jump, as there is no easy roll back (without rolling back your config) of course, I'll be upgrading my in house boxes tonight 🙂 just not any a customers just yet.. ... View more

Any chance it was the switch fabric the port was connected to ? Did you get in via serial console prior to reboot ? ... View more

I think the consensus is that 5.0.2 is extremely buggy, _especially_ on the PA-500. You would do yourself well by going back to 5.0.1 ... View more

It is surely harder to get to get extremely high stability when dealing with some many things simultaneously, than it is just checking simply ACLs, That PAN has been able to do what it does so effectively is impressive now matter how you look at it.  I continue to be very very impressed with the product (of course as a partner I am biased I suppose), and wouldn't recommend anything else given the current threat landscape, but I will be taking a less aggressive approach to updating firmware for a while. I tend to try and keep on the current release under the idea that I _should_ be keeping my bug exposure down. I pushed our various boxes up through all the 4.1.x releases with no ill effects and was lulled into overconfidence I suppose. I suspect most people in these forums would say "what do you expect running the very latest release"... ... View more

I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm pretty annoyed to be rolling a box back from 4.1.11 to 4.1.10 tonight _after_ I rolled it back from 5.0.2 to 4.1 a couple weeks ago. ... View more

5.x seems to require more management CPU utilization altogether than 4.x did. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone, given all the new features. We can hope that efficiency will improve as the 5.x code matures. However, 5.0.2 (and 4.1.11) seem to have a very clear bug related to the User ID process consuming excessive resources. ... View more

yes, 5.0.2 and 4.1.11 both seem to introduce this issue. Roll back to 5.0.1 or 4.1.10. ... View more

This issue seems to be present in 4.1.11 as well, which is disappointing, as we rolled back from 5.0.2 to 4.1.10 to get away from this. ... View more

This issue seems to be present in 4.1.11 as well, which is disappointing, as we rolled back from 5.0.2 to 4.1.10 to get away from this. ... View more

We've had a great number of problems (other than just Mgmt CPU) with 5.0.2 on our PA-500's. It seems to me that 5.0.2 has a number of issues, but that they manifest most dramatically (based on the other posts in this thread) on the PA-500 appliances (CPU and Memory capacity would be my guess). We're rolling back to 4.1.10 tonight on the 500's and 5.0.1 on the VM-100 appliance. ... View more

Obviously there is an issue with UserID consuming massive resources on 5.0.2 (if not 5.0 generally). PAN - Can we expect a hotfix release anytime soon to address this? ... View more