Just now v5.2 GA has been released!...

[storaid]

everyone.. enjoy it!!!

[emnoc]

yeap it' s for real :)

[ShrewLWD]

On page 20 of the release notes, it says it supports FortiAPs running 5.2.0 build 0212 or later, but that is not yet up on the FTP site.

[ShrewLWD]

I have two 3rdGen 100Ds, one production, one test. Production and test are both on 507. I moved my production config file over to test, rebooted, then attempted a GUI upgrade to 5.2 (I have the box directly attached via a secondary NIC to my desktop), while simultaneously watching it in HyperTerm). It accepted the image, passed integrity check, rebooted, and then stopped at ' System is Starting' for 30 minutes. I manually powered it down and started it back up, and is sitting at ' System is Starting' again, for 10 minutes. It should be noted, I have 6 VDOMs enabled on it, so your mileage may vary. I' m going to try fully wiping the box, starting with 5.2, and adding the config file after, next. UPDATE: fully wiping it, updating it with 5.2, doing a formatlogdisk, then uploading the 507 config file, allowed the box to complete the startup. The config-error-log only showed it had issues with 507' s replacement messages for Captive-portal-dflt which I don' t even use. So the rest of the config appears compatible. No explanation for an inplace upgrade though.

[nothingel]

It looks like disk-based logging is again gone for many of the lower-end units. It seems like this feature swings back-n-forth depending upon the specific model and specific firmware release. I' m currently testing a FortiWIFI-60C with 5.2 and the packet capture ability is now gone (at least it' s no longer where it was in 5.0). My guess is that the removal of disk support is the cause. The packet capture capability is enormously useful since the files can be examined using Wireshark. It seems to me that since the introduction of FortiCloud, Fortinet is doing everything possible to limit persistent local storage. I can understand the fear of CompactFlash wearing out over time but I would think light usage of the disk should be OK. Moreover, if Fortinet provided a way for customers to install their own CompactFlash disks then we could replace them as needed. (Or, just give all models something reliable.)

[Dipen]

Firstly in 5.0.x upgrades also many features for lower-end model were gone but from GUI Only..They were still in CLI like FSSO and Explicit Proxy. Well with new features introduces developers need room for processer / memory so just take unnecessary features to cloud. FortiCloud free version dosent look impressive though

[SteveGrant]

Absolutely agree. Why code local storage and fit storage in hardware if it can' t be used reliably? I really like Fortigates, but this is the main thing that puts me off! The free Forticloud is too small and limited to be useful for anything but a small site. It' s not as if Fortigate' s are cheap devices to buy in the first place either! The local storage should be user-replaceable or the software be able to make use of storage (HDD or otherwise) plugged into the USB port. The reporting seems geared towards users buying Forticloud/FAZ/FMGR or SSD/HDD equipped FG. Stop trying to be Cisco - be different, be better!!!

[FGTuser]

Flash storage is exactly the biggest pain of low end FG units and it drives me crazy. The question is not IF the flash breaks, but WHEN the flash breakes. It WILL! Sooner or later. It did on our FG100D gen1 cluster and it was several months of ROYAL PAIN. Long story short - it didn' t break completely at once. We had strange issues where only reboot helped, support had no clue why (still doesn' t). And one day reboot did help forever, because cluster unit didn' t boot - flash completely gone. Lucky day finally, we RMAed it for FG100D gen3 with SSD. Now second unit is on it' s RMA way too - guess what - flash gone. I still can' t 100% say that all the issues were caused by dying flash so far, but most likely - we will see. Fortinet probably and finally understood, that approx. $20? price increase (flash vs. SSD) is not worth the hassle with neverending RMAs, but only on 90D and higher units. Not yet with <90D, probably the SSD price increase is too much comparing to price of the unit. I don' t think so. But we have the solution - support for user replaceable local storage - SSD slot or at least CF card slot or USB storage support. So everybody can buy and use own storage if needed. Forticloud it not the solution: 1) Free 1G is not enough - who will buy more GB for low cost unit? No sense. 2) It' s not realiable, logs can be lost on the way to cloud, it' s UDP. We tried it and we lost some (comparing to local syslog). So now even if the performance of let' s say 60D is enough, you need to buy more expensive 90D and pay more expensive support/UTM bundle. Othewise you will get unusable(or breaking soon - depends on the FortiOS) 16GB of flash. Hello, anybody reading this in Fortinet?!

[vanc]

Flash storage is exactly the biggest pain of low end FG units and it drives me crazy. The question is not IF the flash breaks, but WHEN the flash breakes. It WILL! Sooner or later. ...

Exactly. Wished FTNT management had the same thought earlier. Cheap USB flash? Double lose.

[Carl_Wallmark]

Im in the same boat. I rather pay a few bucks extra to have a real storage on the smaller devices. SSD is cheap these days. Come on Fortinet, listen to the administrators!