FortiOS 5.2.1 is out

[Carl_Wallmark]

.

[dasilva13]

very excited about 5.2.1 as it allows my 300d to move up to that version (not allowed on 5.2) and I need it since we have the new AC ap' s that need at lest 5.2 (I was using beta version)

[BWiebe]

Had some strangeness with one firewall I upgraded, a 200B. The smbcd process was taking 30-40% of the memory on the device and putting it dangerously close to conserve mode. After killing the process, it seemed better, but eventually hung. After a hard reboot, smbcd process again at 37.5% memory usage. Compared to other 5.2.1 firewalls, and smbcd sits at 0%. No documentation on the purpose of smbcd. I opened a call with TAC on this issue. Strangely enough, after about the 4th reboot, the smbcd process is at 0% usage and seemingly ok. Not only that but the memory and CPU usage on the firewall are better than they' ve ever been (the upgrade was from 5.0.6). Still curious on the smbcd process and why it was pinning the memory for so long....

[JnascECSI]

ORIGINAL: BWiebe Had some strangeness with one firewall I upgraded, a 200B. The smbcd process was taking 30-40% of the memory on the device and putting it dangerously close to conserve mode. After killing the process, it seemed better, but eventually hung. After a hard reboot, smbcd process again at 37.5% memory usage. Compared to other 5.2.1 firewalls, and smbcd sits at 0%. No documentation on the purpose of smbcd. I opened a call with TAC on this issue. Strangely enough, after about the 4th reboot, the smbcd process is at 0% usage and seemingly ok. Not only that but the memory and CPU usage on the firewall are better than they' ve ever been (the upgrade was from 5.0.6). Still curious on the smbcd process and why it was pinning the memory for so long....

BWiebe, Just wondering how the 200B has been since your 5.2.1 upgrade? We have 3 of them running 5.0.9 and i have been holding off jumping to 5.2 to see what others have said about it and if it was worth the jump yet.

[simonorch]

I' ve got one customer running 5.2.1 on a 200B cluster. Quite a complex config as well with nat\route vdoms and transparent, lots of ipsec and utm. No show stopping issues seen so far after running it in production for several weeks.

[BWiebe]

BWiebe, Just wondering how the 200B has been since your 5.2.1 upgrade? We have 3 of them running 5.0.9 and i have been holding off jumping to 5.2 to see what others have said about it and if it was worth the jump yet.

Pretty solid, other than the initial issue.

[vanc]

I don' t even see smbcd process on my 100D. Do you have web cache or web proxy enabled? I don' t have these features enabled.

[Christopher_McMullan]

SMBCD could also point to DLP being enabled, or backing up configuration revisions to a network share.

[BWiebe]

ORIGINAL: Christopher McMullan_FTNT SMBCD could also point to DLP being enabled, or backing up configuration revisions to a network share.

No DLP is enabled and no backup to network enabled/setup. It' s very perplexing to me.

[Omar_Hermannsson]

The name SMBCD seems to indicate that is has something with scanning windows filesharing protocols smb/cifs. Or something for connecting to windows fileshares. Not sure what the C stands for. SMB C-something daemon ?

[BWiebe]

ORIGINAL: Omar Hermannsson The name SMBCD seems to indicate that is has something with scanning windows filesharing protocols smb/cifs. Or something for connecting to windows fileshares. Not sure what the C stands for. SMB C-something daemon ?

TAC has come back and said it' s related to SMB shares through Web Portal SSLVPN. The only problem with that is: A) The firewall was essentially unavailable/in conserve mode. B) No users access SSLVPN in that manner. C) This happened during an extensive offhours window, as well as a window when all users were in the office. D) It suddenly stopped ' misbehaving' and started working at 0% after about the 5th reboot. I still believe it' s something with the conversion from 5.0.6 to 5.2.* code-base, but what do I know?