>From: Avi Freedman <avi@freedman.net>
>To: rbuchals@hotmail.com (Ron Buchalski)
>CC: avi@freedman.net, simonl@rd.bbc.co.uk, cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [nsp] RSP/VIP performance question
>Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:39:08 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > >That seems a bit high; 200Mbps-250Mbps seems more reasonable for a
>2/40.
> >
> > I'm not making up the numbers, Avi. Those are the numbers that are used
>in
> > the configuration guidelines for the VIP2-40. Of course, it's dependent
>on
> > packet size, since the 65kpps limit can be reached at a much lower
> > throughput level if the packets are small.
>
>I'm sure you're not, but that's not what we've seen with a normal mix
>of production traffic, is all, across many different IOS versions, with
>cef, optimum, flow, and distributed or not.
>
How do you know that the limits you were hitting were a result of packet
switching limits or bandwidth limits on the VIP2-40 versus something else,
either internal to the router (other processes eating up CPU) or something
external to the router (net congestion)?
> > So, for packet sizes below 692 bytes the throughput will be limited by
>the
> > packet switching capability of the VIP2-40. For packet sizes above 692
> > bytes the throughput will be limited by the bandwidth of the VIP2-40.
> >
> > These are raw performance numbers. Turning on software features which
> > require CPU resources from the VIP2 will reduce the CPU cycles available
>for
> > switching packets.
>
>Are those reality-numbers or theory-numbers?
As I said, they are raw performance numbers. Depending on your
configuration, topology, network conditions, etc., YMMV.
Better stated: You may see worse performance than this, but you won't see
better performance than this.
-rb
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:05 EDT