Can we have live Bandwidth speeds for Interfaces?
It would be great to be able to see live Bandwidth speed stats for each Interface like we had on UTM.
This feature is under consideration for a future release in 2018, though a target version is not yet set.
Come on Guys - seriously!!!
Daniele Giovanardi commented
I think that three years to accept one of the most voted requests is simply too long.
Certainly not a good showcase for those who are evaluating the product.
I think this feature us added in SFOS17. under Diagnostics > System Graphs
There I can see the Bandwidth usage per interface. I m not sure if that shows true bandwidth usage.
John Vindas commented
2019 and still not part of the XG features...
Kindly find below command for same..
console> cyberoam diagnostics utilities bandwidth-monitor
So the bandwidth graph in the Control Center feels useless at the moment. Having the UTM9's feature were it shows each interface's Upload/Download and you can select it to see the Connection and Upload / Download for each services on that interface would be really nice.
The "Live Connections" section of "Current Activities" seems to be missing a lot of bandwidth usage (eg. WAN Zone shows 50Mbps used and Live Connections shows what looks like ~100-200KBps total). So If someone is downloading something, I cannot see it anywhere accurately while it's happening.
When UTM9 showed the "External Interface" using xMbps for <service> from x machine (IP or User) while live, it was very helpful.
And please show a summary of the WAN up/down status along with their bandwidth speeds on the dashboard
Though I do really want this feature (like how it worked in SG) you can see it under Diagnostics -> system graphs, as well as go an iftop from the shell, so you can get that info for your clients
Just discovered this at a new client who requested we provide the bandwidth in use to troubleshoot an issue with the ISP. Pretty embarrassing to not be able to see what is in use.
Jack Joshlin commented
Why is this not available yet? For the money we pay for these devices, this shouldn't even need to be a request.
+1 - Need more parity with features that existed in UTM
@RafaelDuarte : I checked the bandwidth usage shown is same in both the cases you mentioned,
Rafael Duarte commented
I'm looking for solution to see in "Live Connections" the link usage by IP or User... The value showed there is fake. But if we click in "Total Connections", and there organize by downstream Bandwith we have the real link usage by this user or IP. So, it's possible, but is in the wrong place.
Is this feature available in XG17.1 released?
Patrick Wille commented
This is a really needed release.
This has been a standard feature for almost all firewall appliances we've seen and even Free Open Source firewall has built-in.
But our paid full suite "Enterprise" Sophos XG deployed in up to 8 locations can't even commit a target version and up to now it still "under consideration"?
This along with other basic features lacking is very disappointing.
any update on this feature?
David Rudduck commented
The "Live" bandwidth that was in Sophos UTM version 9 with it's ability to be able to apply QoS and filters "on the fly" was a major reason we nearly invested about $30k in a Sophos UTM.
The fact that this feature was not present in XG was the second reason we didn't move forward. Without live statistics on a site that has a 500Mbit pipe, we simply can not provide the same level of visibility that we can out of a pfSense box running nTop (which is currently managing the environment in question).
You can see traffic per interface using CLI, issuing the command:
"system diagnostics utilities bandwidth-monitor"
but the Dashboard should integrate this feature as UTM does.
Company and Contact Information
Company: Karsten Management Services
Sophos Partner (if applicable): URB
Sophos Product Information
Sophos Product: Sophos XG Firewall
Version in Production:SFOS 15.01.0
Feature Request Summary
How will this new feature address your business requirements?: We would be able to monitor bandwidth usage better.
How would you rate the importance of this feature?; 1 = Critical, 5 = Nice-to-have:1