topic Failover Hardware compatibility in Network Security https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/failover-hardware-compatibility/m-p/1962774#M435695 <P>Hi,</P><P>I have two ASA 5510, The one which I just got shows the CPU speed to be 1599MHz </P><P>While the previous device (which is also 5510) reads the CPU as 1600MHz</P><P></P><P>According to Cisco, for Failover redundant configuration, both devices must have same hardware configuration. </P><P>Technically, this slight difference should not be an issue but I need to confirm that thess devices will work fine with failover configuration.</P><P></P><P>At the same time I would like to know, why this difference is happens.</P><P></P><P>Appreciate your support.</P><P>Bader</P> Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:12:17 GMT eng.bader 2019-03-11T23:12:17Z Failover Hardware compatibility https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/failover-hardware-compatibility/m-p/1962774#M435695 <P>Hi,</P><P>I have two ASA 5510, The one which I just got shows the CPU speed to be 1599MHz </P><P>While the previous device (which is also 5510) reads the CPU as 1600MHz</P><P></P><P>According to Cisco, for Failover redundant configuration, both devices must have same hardware configuration. </P><P>Technically, this slight difference should not be an issue but I need to confirm that thess devices will work fine with failover configuration.</P><P></P><P>At the same time I would like to know, why this difference is happens.</P><P></P><P>Appreciate your support.</P><P>Bader</P> Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:12:17 GMT https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/failover-hardware-compatibility/m-p/1962774#M435695 eng.bader 2019-03-11T23:12:17Z Failover Hardware compatibility https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/failover-hardware-compatibility/m-p/1962775#M435696 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>A pair of 5510s will be able to&nbsp; creae a failover pair as long as you have the same installed memory and software revision and hook up the interfaces per the design guide.</P><P></P><P>I'm not sure why one would report 1599 and the other 1600 Mhz. I suspect a minor hardware (or possibly firmware) revision that causes this primarily cosmetic difference. I would be confident in setting them up as a failover pair.</P></BODY></HTML> Sun, 27 May 2012 15:28:28 GMT https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/failover-hardware-compatibility/m-p/1962775#M435696 Marvin Rhoads 2012-05-27T15:28:28Z