Type Perf ASIC Specs Application
Engine 0 250kpps OC12/BMA Both
Engine 1 650kpps Salsa/BMA48 Both
Engine 2 4Mpps PSA/Perf48 Core
Engine 3 4Mpps PSA+TCAM, Picante (nextgen Salsa), other custom ASIC's Edge
Engine 4 25Mpps Newest custom ASIC's Core
Engine 5 25Mpps ??? EFT/Beta customers? Edge
Perf tested on ingress for 300-byte packets on Engine 0 and 1, others tested at 40-byte packets
Engine 0 is also capable of 420kpps at 180-byte packets
BMA is the Buffer Managemnet ASIC (two per LC, rx and tx)
PSA is the Packet Switch ASIC
Rod is correct about Engine 4 cards and that they cannot be used in the 12008/12012's.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120limit/120s/120s10/hw_acl.htm
Discusses some of the impact that PSA and Salsa acceleration have on access-lists.
This document is also very good: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/63/gsrfaq_11085.shtml
And this: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/12000/12slc/index.shtml
Compiled ACL's with a few hundred lines can push the performance of ingress
Engine 0 down to 100kpps, Engine 1 to 200kpps, and Engine 2 can handle 1Mpps.
Don't even both configuring egress ACL's, it ruins the performance of E0/E1
even if you only have one E0 or E1 LC in the GSR and it doesn't even have
the egress ACL configuration.
Not much is known about the Engine 3 & 4 ASIC's, there are a lot of them,
and they seem to be capable of a lot more, but I'm sure it's at the cost of
complexity.
-dre
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:25:02PM +0100, Rod Oliver wrote:
> There is more to it than that, Engines 0-3 are 2.5G cards and run in GSRs
> with either 2.5G or 10G switch fabric. The Engine 4 cards require 10G switch
> fabric which means upgraded 12016s or the newer 124xxs, they will not run on
> 12008s or 12012s.
>
> According to our Cisco SE the only significant (and that it is) difference
> between the Engine 2 and 3 is that the Engine 3 is capable of outbound
> processing (marking, ACLs etc) in hardware, whereas the Engine 2 is most
> definitely not, both have the same forwarding rate (I think 4mpps). The rest
> of the differences are in the configuration available ...
>
> Rod Oliver
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Tauber [mailto:ttauber@genuity.net]
> > Sent: 31 January 2002 21:05
> > To: Jared Mauch
> > Cc: Gert Doering; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [nsp] GSR Engine 1/2/3/4? huh?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 07:41:22PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > is there a document that explains the difference between "engine
> > > > 1", "engine 2", ..., "engine 4" line cards for the GSR?
> > > >
> > > > Is there a simple way to say "this one is better than that one",
> > > > like "the higher the number, the better the card"?
> > > >
> > > > gert
> >
> > > the higher the number the better the card.
> > >
> >
> > I think it's safer to say "the higher the number, the faster the card"
> >
> > Different interface types come out on different Engine types.
> >
> > For instance, Engine 4 is OC192 and QuadOC48 but doesn't
> > really offer "features" which Engine 3 is supposed to, though
> > for the lower speeds.
> >
> > Faster != Better
> >
> > You get the idea.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:30 EDT