[c-nsp] 1841 suitable for BGP?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:32:42AM -0500, Tony Varriale wrote:
> I'm sure the gear I'm familiar with isn't crashing, but I can show you 50% 
> peak CPU on NPE 400s because of BGP scanner running every 60 seconds (since 
> that's it's run interval).  Also, I can show you how 1 eBGP peer reset will 
> send that NPE400 to 100% CPU.

So what?  It's the job of the CPU to handle, well, "CPU-based" tasks.

It would be a great waste of computing performance to *not* go up to 100%
CPU if there is work to do.

> Since NPEs are software based and the CPU is at 100%, what would you say are 
> happening to the packets that should be going thru the box?  

Can you spell "prioritization"?

> I know for sure 
> based on my monitoring that not all the packets are being forwarded at that 
> time.  Are all being dropped?  No.  But it's very difficult to correlate 
> exact microsecond CPU utilization and actual packet drop.

If you see packet losses on a NPE400 *due to CPU load*, you're either
seriously overloading the box with packet forwarding tasks ("too many
small packets"), or you're not using CEF.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de