Question 280
A capacity worksheet recommends increasing R82 ElasticXL membership far beyond the current appliance count, based solely on CPU demand. The proposed new hardware platform has not been validated in the supported topology tables. A preliminary suggestion is to inspect the $FWDIR/log/blade_config state messages. The incident evidence instead points to a different control within the same R82 subsystem. What is the most relevant action?
Explanation
Correct Answer
ElasticXL has documented platform and membership constraints. This directly addresses the documented incident evidence.
Incorrect Answers
ElasticXL is designed to scale membership under one gateway object, yet that applies to scale out the cluster without changing the gateway identity rather than the observed issue.
ElasticXL requires KPPAK and Check Point recommends retaining the default CoreXL Dynamic Balancing configuration; this does not resolve the observed condition.
blade_config records important cluster up/down messages, but the current evidence calls for a different R82 operation.