; > Bryan
> > On 18 Feb 2025 at 2:06 AM +0800, Daan Hoogland ,
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:45 PM Bryan Tiang
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Daan,
> > > >
> > > > Are there guidelines on what could be sugges
given Suricata is an Open Source Project too, I think this is worth doing.
This is just an idea on my side.
Regards,
Bryan
On 18 Feb 2025 at 2:06 AM +0800, Daan Hoogland , wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:45 PM Bryan Tiang
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Daan,
> >
> > Are there
Hi Guys,
Id also be interested to join the online meet.
Its a good alternative for me as im based in southeast asia.
Travelling to europe for cloudstack events is difficult and costly.
Regards,
Bryan
Sent with Spark
On 10 Jan 2025 at 3:07 PM +0800, pavan aravapalli ,
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am also
s
> with less autoscale groups.
>
> On making the VRs redundant, that will take even more resources than
> standalone routers and won't really give you much extra uptime.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan
3) -> DB
This scenario is meant to route traffic from VPC A (API GW only) to many other
customer VPCs.
Regards,
Bryan
On 30 Aug 2024 at 1:48 AM +0800, Wei ZHOU , wrote:
> Thanks for sharing. Interesting
>
> How many cpu and memory does you VR have ?
>
>
> -Wei
> On Thurs
tely can allow all traffic in the firewall and setup firewall rules
> in each individual VM.
>
> In this initial implementation there's no load balancer in ROUTED mode, so no
> Autoscale groups. But it is definitely a possible improvement for future
> versions.
>
> Cheers
>
Hey Alex,
It’s exiting to hear this new features coming about, and that the VR
performance will be improved as a result of pure routing.
We have a pain point right now where our VR is at 75% CPU when handling 200Mbps
Internet Traffic. Probably because we have 50 Autoscale Groups within that 1
